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

Re: ldconfig-symlink-missing-for-shlib error

On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:18:15AM -0400, kamaraju kusumanchi wrote:

> >Please see Policy section 8.1.

> The error message already told me to do that. I ofcourse read this 
> incomprehensible 8.1 section of the debian-policy before posting my 
> question here. The wording in this section is so cryptic that it really 
> does not help attracting new maintainers. I mean, the maint-guide is so 
> good, but this debian-policy is not upto that.

> Just yesterday, I posted for a clarification of the wording in 8.1.1 .

> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/linux.debian.devel.mentors/browse_thread/thread/de6df3a594904f43/064f698ea912845c?hl=en#064f698ea912845c

> May be I am not yet ready for packaging debian stuff... But I would like 
> to try anyway.

> Can you tell me where in this section 8.1, does it say that the 
> maintainer has to create a symbolink for a runtime library package? The 
> thing that comes close is the following paragraph.

> The run-time library package should include the symbolic link that 
> |ldconfig| would create for the shared libraries.

I'm sorry, I don't see any way that Policy could be rewritten to make the
very first sentence that you quoted any clearer.

> According to this paragraph ldconfig should take care of creating the 
> links. Other replies to this thread suggest that ldconfig is not used 
> for this purpose while packaging .debs. If that is correct, then section 
> 8.1 of policy has to be rewritten (since it conveys wrong information).

The *package* should *include* the *symbolic link*.  I think Policy is
already very clear on this point.

Policy doesn't care how you get the symlink *into* the package, if that's
what you're asking; it only requires that the symlink provided by the
package be the same one that ldconfig *would* create.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: