On 14/05/15 14:25, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> On jeu., 2015-05-14 at 14:23 +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>> Hi Yves-Alexis,
>>
>> Am Donnerstag, den 14.05.2015, 13:46 +0200 schrieb Yves-Alexis Perez:
>>> Note that Xfce maintainers aren't the only relevant people here,
>>> although it might be the easiest to consult. I don't really like having
>>> to force Xfce users to install libnautilus (which actually bother me
>>> more than libsecret), but I'm pretty sure evince-gtk is used by a lot of
>>> people from the “non DE” crowd (people using only a WM). Sure, they can
>>> switch to xpdf instead, but evince-gtk was a really nice alternative I
>>> think.
>>
>> thank you very much for your reply. Indeed, I did not have the non-DE
>> crowd in mind when requesting the removal of evince-gtk.
>>
>> Actually, no file in /usr/bin/evice* is linked against libnautilus,
>> but /usr/lib/nautilus/extensions-3.0/libevince-properties-page.so is:
>>
>> $ ldd /usr/lib/nautilus/extensions-3.0/libevince-properties-page.so | grep
>> nautilus
>> libnautilus-extension.so.1 => /usr/lib/libnautilus-extension.so.1
>> (0x00007fa0da86e000)
>>
>> Maybe this can be factored out into a separate package and everybody is
>> happy?
>
> I guess so, yes. If what annoys you most about evince-gtk is the double
> build (which I can understand) and not the separate binary package, then
> I guess it's the most sensible solution.
Just build evince with
DEB_DH_MAKESHLIBS_ARGS_evince += -X/usr/lib/nautilus/
(or whatever it should be, I'm saying this from memory). That would exclude the
extension from ${shlibs:Depends}, which means evince won't depend on
libnautilus-extension1a. Since the extension is (I guess) only used by nautilus
itself, which already links to libnautilus-extension, that should be fine (and
is what we normally do for dlopen'ed extensions).
Emilio
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
