Re: Bug#431482: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian
* Steve Langasek [Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:02:50 -0700]:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:31:13PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek [Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:25:11 -0700]:
> > > But at a minimum, yes, the audacious-plugins package should be depending on
> > > libaudacious by way of shlibdeps.
> > There is no NEEDED entry in the plugins against libaudaciousX.
> That's a bug in the plugins, isn't it? Don't they refer to symbols from
> libaudacious?
Well, point. But the package level strict dependency is still needed
because you don't want audacious against lib4 and -plugins against lib5
installed at the same time. Given that, I can understand why plugins
would not DT_NEED the main library. (Is that a serious bug? I don't
think so, after all they're not directly under /usr/lib.)
> > (Which, true, solves the situation.)
This referred to the "independent migration to testing" situation.
Breakage may still occur due to partial upgrades.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Truth is the most valuable thing we have, so let's economize it.
-- Mark Twain
Reply to: