On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 10:32:00PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I wanted to verify this. I've been looking at a number of packages > which have picked up dependencies on libartsc0, libasound2, libaudio2, > libaudiofile0, libsed0, libjpeg62, libpng12-0, and many others, without > actually build-depending on any of the corresponding dev packages. > The common factor is that they depend on libsdl-image1.2, libsdl-mixer1.2, > and/or libsdl1.2debian. Clearly they're suffering from recursive library > dependency disease. > The question is this: is this due to some script in the SDL packages? They're > complex enough that I couldn't actually tell. The alternative possibility > is of course that each of these packages generated the bad recursive list > on its own, which is just as likely. I'm wondering where to file the bugs. > :-) Try building the package from source, then grep the resulting build tree for references to the libraries in question: both the "-lartsc" and the "libartsc\.(so|la)" forms. Then figure out where those references are coming from. If you have a libartsc.la, then the package needs to be relibtoolized (for starters); if you have -lartsc in an auto-generated file, it probably comes from SDL itself; if you have -lartsc hard-coded in the non-auto-generated Makefile (or Makefile.in, Makefile.am...), it's that package's problem. -- 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