On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:30:44PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > 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. > > If this is actually necessary for libtool-using packages, then write > > something which goes through all of the .la files and does this, since > > that's what libtool wants to do. > and > > Errr, you still havn't said what problem you're trying to solve > > with this yet. > 1. To derive dependency information from libtool-using packages, > it is currently possible to derive lists of shared library packages. > 2. In general, there is a leap in shared library packages and -dev package, > and it's not possible to get a -dev package which is for a given > shared library package. > I envision that it would be nice to be able to agree on some kind of > naming style so that it is possible to deduce the name of development > library in some mechanical manner. It's not just because of autogenerating > -dev dependencies, but about usability of Debian as a Development > platform : > $ objdump -p /usr/lib/libshared.so | sed -n 's/^ *SONAME *//p' | sed 's/\(0-9\)\.so\./\1/; s/\.so\.//; s/$/-dev/' > libshared0-dev $ apt-cache showsrc $(dpkg -S /usr/lib/libxslt.so.1 | cut -f1 -d:) \ | sed -n -e's/^Binary: //p' | sed -e's/,[[:space:]]\+/\n/g' | grep -- -dev \ | sort -u libxslt1-dev $ Can be refined to only query sources for a particular dist, etc. Can't cope with multiple -dev packages from a single source package without recourse to the Contents files. OTOH, your solution just don't seem to offer much unless *all* packages conform to the proposed scheme, and it's already been argued that there are cases that your scheme doesn't address... and even if everyone agreed it was a good idea, it would take a long time before developers would get the benefits of it, because of all the conversions that would need to take place. I just don't see the point. > An alternate solution is to have a database for that kind of thing, > but I forsee that it requires effort to maintain and keep up-to-date. Like the database I just queried above? :) > It's rather embarassing to know that Debian isn't organized at all in this > manner. You seem to be embarrassed easily. If this is such a problem for using Debian as a development platform, why is this the first time I've seen the subject discussed on debian-devel? I'm not convinced that the problem you're trying to solve is of sufficiently general interest to outweigh all of the other problems it introduces (such as the ones that have been pointed out in this thread). -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature