Re: Early adopters of symbol based dependencies needed
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Given that shlibs are still used as fallback, I don't see a reason to
> > remove -V, in particular given that unofficial archs might not have
> > symbols files when they are arch-specific and when something specific
> > needs to be done to add support for a new arch.
> I thought that part of the point of the symbols files was to get more
> accurate dependency information. If unversioned -V is used, dependencies
> will remain overly tight.
But -V affects only what's in shlibs file, no? And shlibs files are
ignored if dpkg-shlibdeps is able to find symbols files. So it doesn't
change the resulting dependency for architectures where we have symbols
And it makes a safe fallback (even with overly tight dependencies). But
this is not a serious concern for unofficial architectures until they are
officially supported. And it also doesn't concern packages where the
set of symbols is the same across all architectures.
So it's not a big deal in the end.
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :