On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:56:08PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > I find four packages in the archive that are picking up a dependency on > > 'binutils' by way of shlibs: ggcov, nitpic, skyeye, and sysprof.
> > nitpic needs libbfd-2.16.91.so, that's nice... > > ggcov, sysprof, and skyeye at least manage to have binary packages in stable > > that depend on the matching version of binutils. > > But all four packages are buggy, as is binutils for providing broken shlibs. > > The shlibs provided by binutils are effectively not supportable in a stable > > release; which means that until binutils has reasonable shlibs (perhaps > > using a virtual package name, the way apt does for its library?), packages > > should not be dynamically linking to libbfd. > FYI, upstream has no plans to introduce a stable interface to libbfd > ever (for the same reason the kernel folks don't do a stable device > driver binary interface). Sure; my objection is not to the frequent changes of the soname, but to the Debian shlibs that wrongly declare that "binutils" can be relied upon to satisfy the dependency. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
