[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Braakman) writes: > > The packaging manual is wrong; this is a long standing bug. > > Can you explain, or refer to a bug number that explains it?
No. I have neither the time nor the inclination to trawl through the hundreds of bugs filed against dpkg. > It's not very good to have incorrect instructions for shared > libraries at a time when we're doing a massive shared-library > upgrade. Most of the libraries have done long ago, and the packaging manual has been wrong since before the release of bo. > > > Why is it calling ldconfig? > > > > Because it's the Right thing to do. > > Heh. That argument only convinces me if I already know why it's > Right :-) Take a look at the postinsts for every package with a shared library. You seem fond of statistics, how many *don't* run ldconfig? > What does the ldconfig do, if the symlinks are already there? RTFM. Also, try it and see. I dare you to take a bo machine, rebuild hamm's bash and remove the C postinst which runs ldconfig and then install the resultant debs. (Hint: it tells the dynamic linker that the library is there) -- James -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
