Previously Manoj Srivastava wrote: > If indeed what you say is true, then why was this not brought > out while the proposal was being debated? Probably because at that moment was had an implementation but that was severely broken and pulled out again and I decided to postpone doing it properly until potato was finished. > Wichert> What happened to the proposal to run dpkg-shlibdeps on > Wichert> libraries? > > I am not sure. Which proposal is that, exactly? And who > proposed it? Run dpkg-shlibdeps on libraries as well instead of only on dependencies. I submitted that a while ago, including a patch for the package manual. > Perhaps the way to do so is incorporate relevant sections of > the packaging manual into the policy manual, and give control of the > packaging manual back to the dpkg developers. I'm definitely in favour of that. Wichert. -- ________________________________________________________________ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | wichert@liacs.nl http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Attachment:
pgpjdhzQ4fdNa.pgp
Description: PGP signature