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

Re: cross binutils-dev

Wookey wrote:
> +++ Jonathan Nieder [2013-01-24 13:58 -0800]:

>> Exactly.  So one fix would be to split out a libbinutils package, with
>> a symbols file making clear that Debian packages are not supposed to
>> link to it.
> What does the symbols file contains that makes this clear? Just
> comments, or are there some suitable runes?

Here's what did the trick for me:

	liblzma.so.5 liblzma5 #MINVER#
	| liblzma_private_symbols
	* Build-Depends-Package: liblzma-dev
	 (symver)XZ_5.0 5.1.1alpha+20110809
	 lzma_code@Base 4.999.9beta 1

With that, attempts to use the not-for-Debian symbol lzma_code@Base

	dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: can't parse dependency liblzma_private_symbols
	dpkg-shlibdeps: error: invalid dependency got generated: liblzma5 (>= 5.1.1alpha+20110809), libcomerr2 (>= 1.01), liblzma_private_symbols, libgpg-error0 (>= 1.10), libbz2-1.0, libgcrypt11 (>= 1.4.5), libc6 (>= 2.3.2), liblzo2-2, libuuid1 (>= 2.16), e2fslibs (>= 1.41.99), zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4), libblkid1 (>= 2.16)

at build time, which was nice.

But nobody except me liked it. :'(  Just requiring a version far in
the future might be less scary.  http://bugs.debian.org/630344 tracks
work on introducing a more proper syntax.


Reply to: