Re: Bug#6231: Bug in libg++27 Version: 220.127.116.11-3
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#6231: Bug in libg++27 Version: 18.104.22.168-3
- From: email@example.com (Kai Henningsen)
- Date: 05 Jan 1997 12:12:00 +0100
- Message-id: <6OI$$6pjcsB@khms.westfalen.de>
- In-reply-to: <m0vg0fh-000171C@elo.sw.ods.com>
firstname.lastname@example.org (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 04.01.97 in <Pine.LNX.3.95.970104233114.202Iemail@example.com>:
> On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, David Engel wrote:
> > Dale Scheetz writes:
> > > On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, David Engel wrote:
> > > > Guy Maor writes:
> > > > > You shouldn't be calling ldconfig in the postinst. Instead include
> > > > > the link that ldconfig would have created. See programmer's manual
> > > > > chapter 12, third paragraph.
> > > >
> > > > The programmer's manual should be changed then. Ldconfig should still
> > > > be run from postinst scripts so that the libraries get added to
> > > > ld.so.cache.
> > > >
> > > No need to change the manual. The paragraph Guy points to clearly says:
> > >
> > > "This (link) is needed so that ld.so can find the library in between the
> > > time dpkg installs it and ldconfig is run in the postinst script."
> > >
> > > This clearly indicates the the link is necessary, but not sufficient and
> > > that ldconfig SHOULD be run in the postinst script.
> > This part is true. However, in the fifth paragraph, the manual says
> > "If you do the above your package does not need to call ldconfig in
> > its maintainer scripts." This part is not true and is the part that
> > needs to be changed.
> Yes, that first line should probably be removed. The rest of the paragraph
> is ok though.
Maybe the manual could include a sample tar listing and postinst script
for a simple library? Or maybe we need a hello library package, for the
same effect? Something small enough so you don't get distracted by
This message was delayed because the list mail delivery agent was down.