[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

dpkg-shlibs and soname



Hello Folks,
Hi Ray,

I'm trying to (re)package rpncalc under the new packaging scheme, but I'm 
having problems with dpkg-shlibs and/or the sonames.  Rpncalc needs the 
readline library to work, which it links with the name libreadline.so.2.0:

(david@eos) ~/C/rpncalc-1.1$ldd rpncalc
        libm.so.5 => /lib/libm.so.5.0.5
        libreadline.so.2.0 => /lib/libreadline.so.2.0
        libncurses.so.3.0 => /lib/libncurses.so.3.0
        libc.so.5 => /lib/libc.so.5.2.18   

But dpkg-shlibs disagrees about the dependency information:
(david@eos) ~/C/rpncalc-1.1$dpkg-shlibdeps rpncalc
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: unable to find dependency information for shared 
library libm (soname 5, path /lib/libm.so.5.0.5, dependency field Depends)
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: unable to find dependency information for shared 
library libreadline (soname 2.0, path /lib/libreadline.so.2.0, dependency 
field Depend
s)  

(well the math library linking can be ignored)
If dpkg-shlibs looks into the package names, the point is clear: there is 
no
libreadline2.0-package:(david@eos) ~/C/rpncalc-1.1$dpkg -s libreadline2
Package: libreadline2
Status: install ok installed
Priority: required
Section: base
Maintainer: Ray Dassen <jdassen@wi.LeidenUniv.nl>
Source: libreadline
Version: 2.0-15
Provides: libreadline
Depends: libc5 (>= 5.2.16-1), ncurses3.0 (>= 1.9.8a-1)
Conflicts: librl (<= 2.0.3-2), libreadline
Description: GNU readline and history libraries, runtime versions.    

Now: What should I do? I see 3 alternatives:
1) Recompile the libreadline package to provide the libreadline2.0 name,
2) link the rpncalc (somehow) against the libreadline2 library (but how?),
3) fool around with the shlibdeps.local file.

What is the right thing to do?

Thanks in advance for comments,
  David

PS: Debian GNU/Linux dpkg-shlibdeps 1.3.14.  

-- 
David Frey <david@eos.lugs.ch>  |Microsoft isn't the answer...it's the 
QUESTION.
Schlieren, Switzerland          |``No'' is the answer.
51F35923114FC8647D05FF173C61EFDE|Use Debian GNU/Linux!




Reply to: