On 1/9/13 11:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The libperl-dev package, as constituted, doesn't make any sense: it's
> got the symlink which people need, and a very large static (.a) library
> that most people don't need. Even worse, you can't tell without close
> inspection which of those files is actually used by a package that
> requires libperl-dev, and that is something that's important to know.
The expectation is that if you want to link against libfoo, you install
libfoo-dev, and after that you can uninstall it. What's wrong with that?
