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.
http://git.debian.org/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=commit;h=6e02b2ef46aadde5ce142bb42b58e3165253eb58
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.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: