Re: Bug#55730: Changes in handling library dependencies

[Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>]

Roman Hodek wrote:
> 
> > How do we ensure that someone upgrading a package from potato to woody
> > pulls in all of the required libraries?  As a "concrete" example,
> > /usr/bin/foo in the foo package depends upon libbar directly and
> > libbar depends upon libbaz indirectly.  In potato, libbar does not
> > declare a dependency upon libbaz, although it will in woody.
> 
> The problem you describe can exist. But only if libbar doesn't depend
> yet on libbaz in potato.
> 
> However (as already said in a previous mail) I think that most shlib
> packages already do depend on other libs they need. What about
> checking for libs that have no such dependencies first?

I belive that any shared library package that does not already run
dpkg-shlibdeps on its shared libraries is broken. It will already have
missing dependancies.

After all, dh_shlibdeps did not pull the idea of running dpkg-shlibdeps on
.so files out of thin air. I did it because it was existing practice
already, and clearly necessary.

In other words, I think Wichert was completly wrong when he said existing
packages don't already do this. :-)

-- 
see shy jo