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

Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It would be much more worth to drop the package name from the
> > dependencies. Except a few corner cases (which could probably be
> > worked around some other way), they are always the package name
> > inside which the library is...
> > The >= is also questionnable. Are there different relationships used
> > there ?
> Consider cases where you want to declare that more than one package
> satisfies the dependency -- we do have libraries using that today in their
> shlibs.  I do think it's necessary here to support the full range of
> dependency semantics here.

Good that you mention it because it can't be done with my current

Can we make the supposition that in that case all packages providing the
library have the same version?

We could then have the package field contain multiple packages (separated
by "," or "|" or whatever) and have dpkg-shlibdeps generate pkg1 (>=
min-ver) | pkg2 (>= min-ver).

Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :

Reply to: