Re: Improving dependencies on shared libraries
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 01:30:39PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 12:37:08PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 11:02:37PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > > Right, I read your message too quickly, sorry. However the maintainer
> > > > can change the symbols file in his package and update the dependency
> > > > associated to this symbol and make sure that a binary using this symbol
> > > > will depend on the version used to build the package.
> > > Miss one and you create a whole ****load of bugs.
> > As much bugs as when you don't bump the shlibs...
> Most library packages use dh_makeshlibs -V anyway...
If you miss symbols, I suppose the tool gets to decide how to handle
it, and would probably default to something sane; this means we would
get "dh_makeshlibs -V" per-symbol instead of per-library in this case;
smaller pain than "dh_makeshlibs -V".
dh_makeshlibs -V should be kept for young libraries: