On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 04:34:43PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:05:43PM +0300, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:14:16PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > > Comment to myself: The current patch probably breaks dh_shlibdeps > > > -l option because it doesn't honor LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Can someone > > > tell me a package which really needs this option? The ones that > > > I tested so far seem to build equally fine without it... > > This option wasneeded when package builds a binary that uses libraries > > built from the same source package. In this case, libraries may not be > > available outside of package build directory; so ldd called from > > dpkg-shlibdeps won't find them witout LD_LIBRARY_PATH. > > Don't yet know how this situation is handled in your patched > > dpkg-shlibdeps... > Hmm, but dpkg-shlibdeps already tries to take care of this by using > all local shlibs files. Can someone point me to a package that really > misbuilds without -l ? This would really help me to understand the > real problem. If you don't handle the -l, you won't be able to resolve a full path for these libs. If you have a package in this situation that's biarch and you have local libs for both the 32bit and the 64bit targets, how will you know which shlibs file to use if you don't look up the full library path and examine the lib for target compatibility? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature