Re: Transition: krb5 to drop Kerberos IV (libkrb53 restructuring)
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:38:22AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > You can certainly obtain a similar result nowadays by putting the
> > > dependency that you want in debian/control directly and by using
> > > the -x option of dpkg-shlibdeps to strip the dependency that you did not
> > > want.
> > Except you could *always* do this, and maintainers preferred to be able to
> > use shlibs.local instead.
> No, the -x feature is a recent addition (added in the lenny cycle).
Ok, that particular feature is new. There were coarser-grained ways to get
the same result.
> > There's a difference between hard-coding the library as a dependency for
> > your package, and saying "for any binaries that need lib foo, use lib
> > bar as the dependency".
> Sure but nowadays with binNMUs and NMU there are no good reasons to override
> the shlib dependency provided by another package (implying that the
> auto-provided dependency is wrong, but instead of fixing that we prefer to
> override it in the package).
It's better to fix the shlibs in the originating package, yes, but I'm not
going to go so far as to presume that there's "no good reason".
What if the person trying to build a package doesn't have root on the system
they're building on, and is trying to work around a bug in one of the
> > It sounds like you're unilaterally deprecating the shlibs.local feature, in
> > a way that is likely to cause silent breakage for packages currently using
> > it.
> Well, given that the addition of symbols file can only be intentional in
> one's package, I never thought it could be a problem (and
> the order in which dpkg-shlibdeps looks up dependencies is documented).
Intentional in the package providing the library, yes. Not necessarily
under control of the person trying to use shlibs.local.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/