[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:
> > > 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
> > implementation/syntax...
> > Can we make the supposition that in that case all packages providing the
> > library have the same version?
> Nope.  Have a look at libGL.  (libGL would actually benefit significantly
> from symbol-shlibs, because not all of the symbols exported by each of the
> implementors are supported by all the others. :/)

Can you expand? I don't see at all how libgl would "benefit" from this new
approach. The current shlibs is already very lax and non-versioned.

In shlibs of libgl1-mesa-glx and libgl1-mesa-swx11:
libGL 1 libgl1-mesa-glx | libgl1

Only libgl1-mesa-glide3 doesn't follow this scheme:
libGL 1 libgl1-mesa-glide3
libOSMesa 6 libgl1-mesa-glide3

I guess that libgl1-mesa-glide3 somehow provides a super-set of the libGL
API and this is the justification of the different dependency.

Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :

Reply to: