Bug forwarded from https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/919509
Seems that according to Policy §10.2, we need to document why we are not
building the shared library with -fPIC in the file README.Debian and get
consensus on that on the debian-devel mailing list.
The reason is that x264 uses a lot of hand written assembler, and
upstream takes care to use non-pic code only on architectures that
support this.
Btw, the same applies to the libav* packages.
Cheers,
Reinhard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120123135322.14419.36245.reportbug@faui43f.infor matik.uni-erlangen.de">http://lists.debian.org/20120123135322.14419.36245.reportbug@faui43f.infor matik.uni-erlangen.de
01-23-2012, 05:20 PM
Russ Allbery
Bug#657019: Please document why the package includes non-PIC code
Reinhard Tartler <siretart@tauware.de> writes:
> Bug forwarded from https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/919509
> Seems that according to Policy §10.2, we need to document why we are not
> building the shared library with -fPIC in the file README.Debian and get
> consensus on that on the debian-devel mailing list.
> The reason is that x264 uses a lot of hand written assembler, and
> upstream takes care to use non-pic code only on architectures that
> support this.
> Btw, the same applies to the libav* packages.
Sounds good to me. This is exactly the sort of package that can sometimes
benefit from this and is pretty much in the center of the reason for that
exception.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87vco2i8me.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu">http://lists.debian.org/87vco2i8me.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu
Bug#657019: Please document why the package includes non-PIC code
