On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Adeodato Simó wrote: > I’m told libbfd.so is a private/internal library of binutils that should > not be dynamically linked against. A static version exists (libbfd.a), > and packages should be using that AFAIK. > > Cc'ing -devel in case there’s a reason it should not be that way. If, on > the contrary, nobody objects, I’ll file a wishlist against lintian so > that an error (warning?) is emitted for packages that DT_NEED that > library (and libopcodes/libiberty as well?)
Please ensure that the lintian warning says to get the package added to the Debian security team's embedded code copies documentation. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
