Re: Dependencies on shared libs, take 2

[Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>]

On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:05:23AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Can you expand? I don't see at all how libgl would "benefit" from this new
> > > approach. The current shlibs is already very lax and non-versioned.

> > Yes, and that's the problem:  I know the libgl shlibs to have been wrong in
> > certain corner cases involving uncommon symbols (whether those are
> > implementors adding their own extensions, or failing to implement the
> > standard, or just exposing symbols in the lib that aren't part of the API in
> > the headers, I don't know).

> And how would the new system help ?

> By default, it would list all existing symbols in the symbols file of each
> package and it wouldn't detect any failure.

> Do you expect the maintainer to mark some symbols as "private" which in
> turn sould lead to an error in the dpkg-shlibdeps run for an application
> using it? 

No, but I expect the maintainer to mark them as requiring a dependency on,
e.g., nvidia-glx instead of on xlibmesa-gl | libgl1, or on libgl1-mesa-glx |
libgl1-mesa-swx11 | libgl1-mesa-glide3 instead of on libgl1-mesa-glx | libgl1.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/