On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 09:03:22PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Bas Wijnen <shevek@fmf.nl> writes: > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 06:13:49PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> The reason why the link should be included is so that the library can > >> already be used between unpacking and configuring (running ldconfig) the > >> package. > > And because if ldconfig creates the link, it isn't owned by the package and > > can't be removed when the package is removed. That would clutter the system, > > making piuparts angry. (Actually, it might miss it. But it's the kind of > > stuff it checks for. :-) ) > The ldconfig call in postrm removes the link, or the next install of a > library package. Or not? I don't think it does; at least, I've had bugs in packages before that didn't ship the ldconfig symlinks because of this problem. ldconfig only knows to create symlinks, it can't really know which dangling symlinks are its responsibility to remove. FWIW, questions of this level seem more appropriate for -devel than for -mentors; the -mentors subscribership doesn't tend to have the depth of experience to know about all the corner cases that might be relevant to something like this. -- 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