Re: Do symbols make sense for C++
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:49:06PM +0000, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2012-01-26, Thomas Weber <tweber@debian.org> wrote:
> > I'm currently creating symbol files for Octave in Debian. And quite
> > frankly, the way symbol files for C++ libraries are handled and
> > (especially) documented is totally frustrating.
> >
> > There's exactly zero precise documentation on how to maintain symbol
> > files there. When the topic is brought up on mailing list, people point
> > at some tools from the KDE packages, but still there's no documentation
> > on the problem itself. The best example is dpkg-gensymbols(1) itself:
>
> did you read the link I posted? That's currently the best docs we have
> for pkgkde-symbolshelper. Better docs is always a nice thing to have.
> Please help improve it.
I have read the link, but that's not the issue. I want to understand the
problem and after that I can think about a tool to use. As an example,
the policy tells you what a package must look like - it doesn't just
document debhelper.
In other words, I'm lacking the knowledge for writing better
documentation for pkgkde-symbolhelper.
> > Yeah, great. Which instantiations cannot be marked as optional and how
> > do I recognize them? And if it's actually impossible to maintain symbol
> > files for C++ libraries (as Florian Weimer has claimed in this thread),
> > why doesn't the manpage just say so?
>
> It is not at all impossible to maintain symbol files for c++ libraries.
I surely hope so, I have already spent quite some time on getting them
in shape for Octave ;). That doesn't change the fact that I'm less than
sure about some of the things I'm doing there.
Thomas
Reply to: