Re: shared library -dev package naming proposal
Junichi Uekawa <email@example.com> writes:
>> > Having a solid naming scheme will allow me to
>> > ldd /usr/lib/libwhatever.so to track down its
>> > shared library dependency, and appending "-dev"
>> > to individual package to create the list of
>> > requisite -dev packages.
You could also suggest a policy for libs to have a libfoo.devname file
similar to the libfoo.shlibs file but naming the needed -dev
packages. If that is a good idea or not you have to think about. Just
a wild idea.
>> With the current scheme it is:
>> ldd /usr/lib/libwhatever.so to track down its shared library
>> dependency, strip the soversion and appending "-dev" to individual
>> package to create the list of requisite -dev packages.
>> And, by the way, that list is just plain wrong.
> Okay, currently d-shlibs is using objdump,
> and does not recursively look for dependencies.
> gotom suggested to use ldd, to obtain the full path of
> shared libraries, and I do see the limitation with
> using ldd, as you pointed out illustratively
> in your example.
You have to do both. ldd for the full path and then filter that with
objdump. That is how dpkg-shlibdeps does it if I read the code right.