Re: Shared library incompatibilty and versioned build-dependencies
Hi Paul,
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Matt Kraai <kraai@ftbfs.org> wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to create a new package of The Unarchiver.
>
> Thanks!
>
> How are you building it? I took a look and gave up when I saw it has
> no makefiles, only an Xcode project and the GNUStep pbxbuild (that
> translates Xcode stuff to Makefiles) tool is not available in Debian
> yet.
There's a Makefile.linux in the XADMaster subdirectory that can build
the lsar and unar command line executables. You can find my
preliminary packages at
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=619602
> > When I build it in unstable, it generates the following warning
> > and the resulting executables hang when run:
> >
> > /usr/bin/ld: warning: libobjc.so.2, needed by
> > /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.6.1/../../../../lib/libgnustep-base.so,
> > may conflict with libobjc.so.3
> >
> > If I build the package in testing, it links only against
> > libobjc.so.2
> > and the executables run successfully. I shouldn't upload such a
> > package to the archive though, right?
> >
> > I think that this will be fixed by rebuilding gnustep-base against
> > libobjc.so.3. Should I add a versioned dependency against the fixed
> > version of libgnustep-base-dev to ensure that the autobuilders use
> > the
> > right version?
>
> gnustep-base should definitely be rebuilt against the new ObjC
> library. I think you could just wait until the rebuilt gnustep-base is
> available everywhere.
>
> I don't see any objc transition here:
>
> http://release.debian.org/transitions/
>
> You might want to ask the maintainers if they had any plans for a
> transition and the release team for a binNMU and if they had noticed
> the need for a transition.
OK, I'll do so. Thanks for the help,
--
Matt Kraai
https://ftbfs.org/kraai
Reply to: