Re: update on Debian/FreeBSD
I'm using dpkg 1.9.16, which I believe was from unstable. I checked CVS, and it
looked like 1.9.16 had just been released when I got it. I'm using testing and
sid, for the most part. I had to downgrade a few things, like gcc and perl,
because I couldn't get the latest versions to compile. So for now I'm using
gcc 2.9.4 and perl 5.005. I'm also using FreeBSD-STABLE.
dpkg-shlibdeps is using both ldd and objdump. It's using ldd to get the paths
for all the shared libs, and matching them up with the list of libs from
objdump's NEEDED field. FreeBSD's ldd doesn't work with shared libraries, so
FreeBSD, I switched to using ldconfig -r, which seems to provide what it needs,
after a little mangling of the output. I think it is probably a FreeBSD-
specific problem and solution.
On Sat, Aug 04, 2001 at 12:38:12PM +0200, Filip Van Raemdonck wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 09:49:07PM -0400, utsl@quic.net wrote:
> > The list has been quiet the last couple days, so I thought I'd post some
> > updates from my adventures with FreeBSD:
> <snip>
> > * Figured out how to "fix" dpkg-shlibdeps. It wanted to use ldd on shared
> > libs, but I hacked it to get a list of libs from ldconfig -r instead. It
> > seems to work now.
>
> Everyone should start using (at least[1]) unstable for what they are doing.
> As an example, dpkg in unstable hasn't been using ldd since november last
> year, as ldd for shlibdeps was giving all kinds of problems. It uses objdump
> instead now.
>
> Potato is a static release, no development is being done on it anymore, only
> security fixes. If people keep using potato to work with, they may easily
> bump into problems that they may not have had with sid.
>
> Regards,
>
> Filip
>
> [1] For dpkg and apt it may be wise even to use cvs, for the time that
> Debian/BSD doesn't get officially into the archives. Even the unstable
> versions of those two tools tend to "get old" fast when compared to the
> sources available from cvs.debian.org
>
> --
> "When we said that you needed to cut the wires for ultimate security,
> we didn't mean that you should go wireless instead."
> -- Casper Dik
Reply to: