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

Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2

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[1] 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[2], it also has benefit of allowing inclusion of
differing symbol information for udebs, if it ever becomes useful to do

see shy jo

[1] #363133
[2] Would it be worthwhile to support multiple symbols on one line to
    save even more space?
    	symbol [symbol...] dependencies...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: