Re: #520646: binNMU oprofile
* Paul Wise [Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:29:10 +0900]:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > I’m told libbfd.so is a private/internal library of binutils that should
> > not be dynamically linked against. A static version exists (libbfd.a),
> > and packages should be using that AFAIK.
> > Cc'ing -devel in case there’s a reason it should not be that way. If, on
> > the contrary, nobody objects, I’ll file a wishlist against lintian so
> > that an error (warning?) is emitted for packages that DT_NEED that
> > library (and libopcodes/libiberty as well?)
> Please ensure that the lintian warning says to get the package added
> to the Debian security team's embedded code copies documentation.
A second idea came up in #debian-release; namely, making binutil’s
shlibs file generate unsatisfiable dependencies, to signal that is not
okay to dynamically link against those libraries. I’m putting the
binutils maintainer on CC to see what he thinks about this idea.
- Are you sure we're good?
-- Rory and Lorelai