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

Re: Early adopters of symbol based dependencies needed

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
>    I always use dependencies like >= 2.10 in shlibs files rather than the
>    more specific 2.10-1 because of this problem.  I'm not sure if that's
>    the right general solution, but people who start from the seed files
>    should at least consider removing the Debian revision in cases like
>    this to make backporting easier.

Good point. Added to the wiki page.

>  * The new warnings from the dpkg-* tools warn about any binary Perl
>    module because all binary Perl modules use symbols from Perl itself but
>    traditionally aren't linked directly against libperl.  (There was some
>    reason for this that I don't recall off-hand.)  Should these warnings
>    just be ignored?  Suppressed in some way?  Should binary Perl modules
>    link against libperl?  I haven't worked through the implications in my
>    head yet.

This is not normal.

This change was precisely meant to silence those warnings. But it looks
like this line is problematic:
return exists $self->{flags}{DYNAMIC} and $self->{flags}{DYNAMIC}
        and exists $self->{SONAME} and $self->{SONAME};

It's parsed as:
(return exists $self->{flags}{DYNAMIC}) and ...

Replacing "and" by "&&" fixes the problem. It's weird because I'm pretty sure it
worked before and I tested it. Anyway, it's fixed in git and will be in the next
dpkg version.

Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :

Reply to: