Bug#172546: dpkg: issues with diversions and symlinks
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.10.9
> Severity: normal
Same problem with version 1.10.10. This is severe, because it's easy to
miss the reason.
> In my DRI CVS snapshot packages, I'd like to divert libGL from xlibmesa3. I
> expected that to be a simple matter of diverting
> /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2, but the result was this:
>
> lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 24 2002-12-07 10:54 /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1 -> libGL.so.1.2.nodri-trunk
> - -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 805452 2002-12-05 20:55 /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2
> - -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 491608 2002-11-23 09:05 /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2.nodri-trunk
I installed ATI's driver package (fglrx-glc22), and similarily needed to
divert /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2 from xlibmesa3-gl. dpkg-divert moved it
to /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1.2.distrib.
All would be well, but when ldconfig updates symlinks, it decides that the
diverted libGL.so.1.2.distrib is a better libGL.so.1 than the wanted
libGL.so.1.2. This means all programs still use the library from
xlibmesa3-gl.
dpkg-divert could fix this by diverting libraries to some other name than
original + ".divert" by default. To fix ldconfig instead, I think the
so-library naming scheme would have to be changed so that no .divert file
could be considered a library version.
> Any ideas how to fix or at least work around this appreciated.
Maybe you solved this problem a long time ago already, but here's for the
record.
The administrator can already use dpkg-divert option --divert to specify
some name that doesn't infere with ldconfig logic. Additionally, a package
mainainer can, instead of diverting the old library file, give their
version of the file a name that ldconfig considers better than the
original.
Yours,
Tuukka Hastrup
--
-- Trying to catch me? Just follow up my Electric Fingerprints
-- To help you: Tuukka.Hastrup@iki.fi
http://www.iki.fi/Tuukka.Hastrup/
IRCNet: Stugge/tuukkah @#pii,#fenfire,#ynna
Jabber ID: tuukka@jabber.org, ICQ #11321669
Reply to: