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

Re: Package priorities and dependencies.

On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:

> > >Two packages in the list of "important" refused to install because they
> > >declared (correctly) their dependence upon packages of lower priority.
> > >
> > >	at	depends on	libelf0		priority: optional
> > 
> > This dependency isn't needed... hmm...
> > 
> > For some reason, the configure script created by autoconf always
> > looks for -lelf and, if it can find it, adds it to the list of
> > searched libraries.
> >
> Probably because the author considered that this would make a better at.

I found this same problem some time ago, when I adopted libelf.

That time it was make which depended on libelf0, and Manoj found
that it wasn't needed at all. It was just an artifact introduced
by configure. In short, configure looks for /usr/include/elf.h ,
and if it finds that file, it adds "-lelf" to the gcc flags.

As elf.h is unrelated to libelf in Linux systems (I don't know 
about it in SVR4 or Solaris, from where that library was ported), 
this test is broken for Linux.

The only package I know that really uses libelf is the ELK, for some
manipulations with loadable modules. (Even that may be done with some
other library, but I have not found it yet).

Enrique Zanardi					ezanardi@noah.dfis.ull.es
Dpto. Fisica Fundamental y Experimental
Univ. de La Laguna

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: