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

Re: Bug#340934: lintian check for unneeded/transitive shlibs dependencies

On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 06:05:52PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > I have written a Lintian check which attempts to flag instances of
> > > this problem. It looks for ELF objects that flag shared libraries in
> > > the default search path as NEEDED without actually importing symbols
> > > that the library exports.

> > This produces a lot of noise in a case where a package has multiple
> > binaries or libraries (sometimes in multiple packages), and a Makefile
> > that links everything to a common set of libs which not everything
> > needs.  Your check flags this correctly, but it can be a real pain to
> > fix, and doesn't usually cause practical problems - particularly the
> > problem Steve writes about.  Remember, the granularity of testing
> > migrations and library transitions is not the file or even the binary
> > package, but the source package.

> This appears to be a fair point. I think I'll revise my proposal so it
> works per .deb rather than per object file.

> I'd like to see some broader debate, however. I am not conviced that
> the entire _source_ package is the right level to check this at. Steve
> mentioned two problems - one is painfullness of library transitions,
> the other is segfaults in case of partial upgrades. While the first
> problem indeed works on the source package level, the second is often
> a matter between binary packages with the same source.

I agree that we need better granularity than per-source.  I actually think
that having it per object file is ideal in the long run, though in the short
term doing it per binary package means less confusing noise.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: