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

Re: dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on.... (they use none of its symbols)



On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 14:00 -0430, Muammar El Khatib wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Chow Loong Jin <hyperair@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 1) "It's known not to work on FreeBSD and probably does not work on other
> >> non-Linux targets."
> >>
> >> 2) http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=502083
> >>
> >> 3) http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=320697
> > But Debian is not BSD, it's a GNU/Linux distribution is it not? Also,
> 
> No, Debian is not BSD. But we have this http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/:
> 
> "Debian GNU/kFreeBSD is a port that consists of GNU userland using the GNU C
> library on top of FreeBSD's kernel, coupled with the regular Debian package set."
> 
>  Now, as you can see at #502083 and #320697 the use of the flag has gotten
> problems before.
> 
> > I'm not too sure about the whole breaking-on-other-archs issue. I've got
> > some packages with the ltmain.sh as needed patch, and -Wl,--as-needed in
> > LDFLAGS, and they built on all the target architectures[1].
> >
> 
> Well, I am not sure either because it is the first time I face this problem.
> But, If I've read well in #502083 there says:
> 
> "--as-needed is only used on arm and armel builds, while it should
> be exactly opposite :( Incidentally it also shows that --as-needed is ok
> for arm (but not for armel)."
> 
> While in arm it was ok, in armel the use of --as-needed flag didn't work. So,
> the use of such a flag could be _problematic_.
> 
> > [1] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/jaunty/+source/geanyvc/0.4-0ubuntu1
> 
> Well, this package is not into Debian archive yet, there is only an ITP. I know
> that Debian supports 12 architectures (http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/)
> while Ubuntu only supports 6
> https://help.ubuntu.com/8.10/installation-guide/i386/hardware-supported.html so
> I think your argument about geanyvc does not apply at all for Debian.
> 

Ah, my bad. Thanks for clarifying. Either way isn't that bug marked as
fixed? Which would mean all the issues discussed in the bug are also
fixed?
-- 
Chow Loong Jin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: