Re: new features in dpkg 1.7.1
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> > Not good, and I can't see a good fix, except to make the new version of
> > foo also call suidregister in its postinst.
>
> Or make it depend on dpkg >= 1.7.
Sure. Lots of dependancies needed though.
> > dh_shlibdeps has always called it on binaries. Hasn't dpkg-shlibdeps
> > always been meant to be used that way?
>
> Yes, but it never was really important until now (and in fact the
> text in the policy manual didn't reflect that until recently).
Color me confused -- if you don't run dpkg-shlibdeps on a binary, how
does it figure out the binary's dependancies?
--
see shy jo
Reply to: