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

Re: Bug#431482: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

* Steve Langasek [Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:02:50 -0700]:

> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:31:13PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek [Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:25:11 -0700]:

> > > But at a minimum, yes, the audacious-plugins package should be depending on
> > > libaudacious by way of shlibdeps.

> > There is no NEEDED entry in the plugins against libaudaciousX.

> That's a bug in the plugins, isn't it?  Don't they refer to symbols from
> libaudacious?

Well, point. But the package level strict dependency is still needed
because you don't want audacious against lib4 and -plugins against lib5
installed at the same time. Given that, I can understand why plugins
would not DT_NEED the main library. (Is that a serious bug? I don't
think so, after all they're not directly under /usr/lib.)

> > (Which, true, solves the situation.)

This referred to the "independent migration to testing" situation.
Breakage may still occur due to partial upgrades.

Adeodato Simó                                     dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer                                  adeodato at debian.org
Truth is the most valuable thing we have, so let's economize it.
                -- Mark Twain

Reply to: