On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 03:12:09PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, Julien BLACHE wrote: > > Raphael Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> wrote:
> > >> debian/shlibs.local should help for that. > > > Except symbols files have priority over shlibs and there's no > > > symbols.local. > > I sense a lack of flexibility in this symbols file feature, hmm. > shlibs.local was initially a poor solution for a less than ideal > dpkg-shlibdeps that couldn't cope with shlibs just produced by the > packages being built. Are you sure this was the reason? shlibs.local support was added to dpkg-shlibdeps in 1996, which I think was before either you or I were involved in Debian... > You can certainly obtain a similar result nowadays by putting the > dependency that you want in debian/control directly and by using > the -x option of dpkg-shlibdeps to strip the dependency that you did not > want. Except you could *always* do this, and maintainers preferred to be able to use shlibs.local instead. There's a difference between hard-coding the library as a dependency for your package, and saying "for any binaries that need lib foo, use lib bar as the dependency". It sounds like you're unilaterally deprecating the shlibs.local feature, in a way that is likely to cause silent breakage for packages currently using it. $ find /srv/lintian.debian.org/laboratory/source -name shlibs.local | wc -l 100 $ -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
