Re: FW: Re: help: shlibs problem
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 09:29:00AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > However, if objdump lists a library that ldd can't find the path for, and the
> > library is mentioned in debian/shlibs.local, isn't it reasonable for
> > dpkg-shlibdeps to assume that this local library is the one it's looking for?
> > After all, passing LD_LIBRARY_PATH to ldd doesn't help the fact that we
> > still have to go to debian/shlibs.local to find the binary package name. Why
> > not suppress the warning, since it's pretty much meaningless in this case?
> > Further, the man page says that the debian/shlibs.local file has higher
> > precedence than shlibs listings for installed packages. So even if ldd
> > /does/ find a library with the same soname belonging to an installed package,
> > it should still use the dependency name from shlibs.local, correct?
> IIRC, shlibs.local isn't needed in this case, because we use
> ldd/objdump. IOW, it will simply know that the library is contained in
> the package, and ignore the self-dep. To be honest, I think shlibs.local
> isn't need at all now, because dpkg-shlibdeps even checks
> debian/*/DEBIAN/shlibs aswell.
Ah. In that case, the preferred solution is to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH when
calling dpkg-shlibdeps, and omit the shlibs.local file altogether? I didn't
realize debian/*/DEBIAN/shlibs was looked at. Yes, that seems reasonable; I
was just hoping to avoid redundancy for redundancy's sake (well, for the sake
of suppressing an warning). But if shlibs.local is no longer necessary, then
I guess there's no more redundancy. :)
Is there any reason not to use this approach right now for packages uploaded
to sid?
Thanks,
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: