On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 10:39 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello, > > as announced in > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/09/msg00004.html the > new dpkg-shlibdeps is stricter in what it accepts and will fail when it > can't find dependency information for a library that is used by an > executable or a public library (a public library is defined as a library > which has a SONAME, see the output of "objdump -p"). > > Failures look like this: > dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: No dependency information found for libkdeinit4_kfmclient.so (used by debian/konqueror/usr/bin/kfmclient). > > It might also look like this: > dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: couldn't find library libhpip.so.0 (note: only packages with 'shlibs' files are looked into). After my last attempts to rebuild the archive (using rebuildd) on powerpc, I've faced that given this, lots of packages now FTBFS. ie. dpkg-shlibdeps: failure: No dependency information found for libecalendar_common_conduit.so (used by debian/evolution/usr/lib/evolution/2.12/conduits/libetodo_conduit.so). dh_shlibdeps: command returned error code 512 make: *** [binary-predeb-IMPL/evolution] Error 1 dpkg-buildpackage: failure: fakeroot debian/rules binary gave error exit status 2 So, how should we expect buildds to behave after this change? Should all of these FTBFSs be filed on the BTS? What should rebuilders do? Consider these questions just for the sake of a better understanding on actions taken. -- David Moreno Garza <damog@espiral.org.mx> | http://www.damog.net/ Que toda la gente diga, "ah, ese g¨ey existe".
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part