On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Joey Hess wrote: > Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Given that shlibs are still used as fallback, I don't see a reason to > > remove -V, in particular given that unofficial archs might not have > > symbols files when they are arch-specific and when something specific > > needs to be done to add support for a new arch. > > I thought that part of the point of the symbols files was to get more > accurate dependency information. If unversioned -V is used, dependencies > will remain overly tight.
But -V affects only what's in shlibs file, no? And shlibs files are ignored if dpkg-shlibdeps is able to find symbols files. So it doesn't change the resulting dependency for architectures where we have symbols files. And it makes a safe fallback (even with overly tight dependencies). But this is not a serious concern for unofficial architectures until they are officially supported. And it also doesn't concern packages where the set of symbols is the same across all architectures. So it's not a big deal in the end. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
