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

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for December 7, 1998

In article <19981208222718.B18101@gate.cks.com>, David Welton <davidw@gate.cks.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 1998 at 01:17:19PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> Previously David Welton wrote:
>> > Does anyone have an idea of how to avoid the 'chicken and the egg'
>> > problem with this?  To fix this, I need to do -lqthreads, right?  This
>> > package contains qthreads, though...  Do I need to seperate this out
>> > into another package?
>> The package itself needs a shlibs.local for libqthreads and should
>> mention it in the normal shlibs file as well I think.

> So putting this file makes the output of ldd change?  I don't get it,
> I'm afraid.  Could you point me to furthere references?

My jade package ships two binary packages (jade, sp) which depend on
libsp1; there's libsp1-dev to boot.  See the rules file for the source
package, but what I do in a nutshell is (from build-arch rule):

	echo "libsp1:ShlibVersion=libsp1 (>= $(SHLIBS_PKGVER))" \
	    >> debian/substvars
	echo "libsp      1 libsp1 (>= $(SHLIBS_PKGVER))" > debian/shlibs.local
	echo "libgrove   1 libsp1 (>= $(SHLIBS_PKGVER))" >> debian/shlibs.local
	echo "libspgrove 1 libsp1 (>= $(SHLIBS_PKGVER))" >> debian/shlibs.local
	echo "libstyle   1 libsp1 (>= $(SHLIBS_PKGVER))" >> debian/shlibs.local

	LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$(prefix-libsp1)/usr/lib			\
	  LD_PRELOAD=							\
	  dpkg-shlibdeps -pshlibs-sp $(bindir-sp)/*

Note I've statically set 'SHLIBS_PKGVER := 1.2-1' -- this controls
backwards shlibs compability.  Generally, you can determine from just
the major version of your package, but mistakes can happen.

And then I reference these new variables in my control file:

  Package: sp
  Architecture: any
  Depends: ${shlibs-sp:Depends}, ${libsp1:ShlibVersion}

It's pretty hairy but it works fine.  Of course there are more little
details; see the whole rules file for an example.

.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

Reply to: