Steve Langasek wrote: > > Finally, why not add the symbol informations to the shlibs file (that > > can be done in a backwards compatible way) instead of creating yet > > another control file ? > > I'd rather we didn't, even if it doesn't break anything it still abuses the > shlibs file format as defined in policy. And what happens if you > (improbably) have an overlap between a library name and a symbol name? Note that policy doesn't fully document the current shlibs format, which is: [package-type:] library-name soname-version-number dependencies... It seems that this could be extended to include symbol information: [package-type:] library-name soname-version-number dependencies... [symbol dependencies...] [...] Like the package-type extension, this extra information will be transparently ignored by old versions of dpkg-shlibdeps. Besides being slightly more compact, it also has benefit of allowing inclusion of differing symbol information for udebs, if it ever becomes useful to do so. -- see shy jo  #363133  Would it be worthwhile to support multiple symbols on one line to save even more space? symbol [symbol...] dependencies...
Description: Digital signature