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

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?

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Reply to: