On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 11:48:42AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Nikolaus Schulz <microschulz@web.de> writes: > > > Okay, just to be sure: you suggest making a separate library package, > > but putting the libs in /usr/lib/<libpackage> and RPATH-linking the > > binaries, right? That is, treating the library as private, although it > > is a separate package. Phew. > > Right. [...] > > dpkg-shlibdeps would still choke upon the unversioned soname, but I > > could just hard-code the library dependency and be done with it. There > > would be no shlibs file. Again no problem, right? > > That's my take, yes. Okay, cool, I'll go ahead then. I like this solution. I think it's a pretty good translation of the status of these libraries into packaging. Thanks! Nikolaus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature