Re: Upcoming Debian Releases
Kevin Dalley <email@example.com> writes:
> This is a problem with xpm and sonames. The maintainer, Michael Alan
> Dorman, and ldd disagree on how to solve the problem. Does anyone
> have a solution?
The *real* solution is that the maintainer come to his senses.
Unfortunately, he's been quite busy for the last few days, and unable
to inform you of his epiphany, to wit: I was wrong, the soname is 4, I
apologize, thanks for not letting me perpetrate such a stupid mistake.
I'll be uploading a corrected version no later than this weekend.
> What is the solution to this problem. Should ldso be fixed or is
> there a solution for xpm4.7?
Now that I've performed some ritual abasement, let me mention that I
did have a good reason for thinking I was right.
Indeed, I found the spot in the Makefile where it's declared that the
soname is 4.7, and had a nasty message all ready to send when I
decided to verify that ldd was wrong by checking ncurses, another
package I maitain that happens to have a two digit soname.
Unfortunately for my asertions, ldd reported the two digit soname.
So I investigated further, and discovered that, although the Makefile
_seems_ to document the soname as 4.7, when it actually comes time to
invoke gcc ahd set the soname, it does some fancy sed work and arrives
at a soname of 4, not 4.7.
At this point, I'm just contemplating whether it is preferable to
release a final xpm4.7 that solves this immediate problem, and then
create a new xpm4 that does it right, or just do an xpm4. I'll have
decided by this weekend (though I suspect I'll do a final 4.7).
Once again, I apologize for not being very receptive---I wasn't, I
think, unreasonable in believeing that the other tools must be broken,
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com