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

Re: SDL producing bogus dependencies or packages misusing SDL?

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

Reply to: