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

Re: About dpkg-shlibdeps checks



[ CCing #452511 as I provide an explanation of why we shouldn't change
back to --ignore-missing-info by default without careful consideration ]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>   Damn I wanted to answer to that, and forgot: I don't think anyone
> wants a revert. I'd expect you to make lower the dpkg-shlibdeps
> expectations for a while, so that we can take our time to catalog every
> issues that it raise.

If only things were as simple as that. 

Go read #452339 and understand that the new dpkg-shlibdeps fully respects
any local ld.so.conf configuration, and any broken RPATH information in
binaries.

This means that because of unexpected local configuration, or because of
bad RPATH, dpkg-shlibdeps might find a copy of the library that is not
packaged (even in /usr/local/ [1]).

If later on I don't find the dependency information because the library is
not associated to any package, and if I silently ignore that information
as you suggest it to me, we will have produced packages with missing
dependencies.

I'd rather be more strict and relax the rules as we identify cases where I
have been too strict, than let people upload broken .debs during weeks and
later discover that we have to scan the full archive to rebuild 
a bunch of them.

Yes, the situation is not always as simple as it looks like.

[1] BTW, should I just skip any directory matching "^/usr/local" while
trying to find the library used by a binary?

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/



Reply to: