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

Bug#338219: marked as done (Mandate ldconfig search list or directories for which ldconfig should be called)

Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700
with message-id <87o9rlx51o.fsf@iris.silentflame.com>
and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #338219,
regarding Mandate ldconfig search list or directories for which ldconfig should be called
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
338219: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=338219
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debhelper

Hi Joey,

(log edited for brevity)

<Robot101> walters: how do I stop cdbs from running dh_makeshlibdeps on all the packages?
<Robot101> walters: it's false-positivey on Gaim's plugins, leading to extraneous calls to ldconfig
<walters>   * dh_makeshlibs: only scan files matching *.so.* and *.so, not *.so*.
<walters>     Closes: #204559
<walters> Robot101: does that fix it?
<Robot101> walters: no
<Robot101> walters: they are .so files, but they're in /usr/lib/gaim/. plugins, not shared libs.
<Robot101> but anyway, I have DEB_DH_MAKESHLIBS_ARGS := -plibgaim-remote0 -V
<Robot101> so it should only be doing libgaim-remote anyway
<Robot101> or am I missing something?
<Robot101> I could always do DEB_DH_MAKESHLIBS_ARGS_gaim := --no-act
<Robot101> but that's fucking evil :D
<walters> Robot101: hmm.  the plugins are in both packages?
<Robot101> walters: there are three packages, gaim, libgaim-remote0 and libgaim-remote-dev
<Robot101> gaim has /usr/lib/gaim/*.so, plugins. libgaim-remote0 has libs in /usr/lib
<walters> Robot101: i see.
<walters> Robot101: hm, well, maybe dh_makeshlibs should only look at .so files in /usr/lib and /lib, not /usr/lib/packagename
<walters> (would that break anything?)
<vorlon> nothing in Debian should be allowed to link to libs in /usr/lib/packagename, really, so probably not.
<walters> joeyh: ayh?
<calc> it would break packages which are still buggy
<Robot101> W: gaim: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
<Robot101> W: gaim: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
<Robot101> see what lintian does to find that error
* calc coughs about something that is probably buggy ;)
<Robot101> lintian checks to see if files are put in any of these directories: lib, usr/lib, usr/lib/libg++-dbg, usr/X11R6/lib/Xaw3d, usr/local/lib, usr/X11R6/lib, usr/lib/libc5-compat, lib/libc5-compat

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
control: user debian-policy@packages.debian.org
control: usertag -1 +obsolete
control: tag -1 +wontfix

Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and
we are closing this bug as inactive.

The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most
frequent to least frequent:

- issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix
  the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one
  has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be
  important enough to keep an open bug around;

- issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a
  consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion.  A fresh
  discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the
  old bug are unlikely to help very much; or

- issue is not appropriate for Policy.

If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the
discussion, you can re-open the bug.  However, please consider instead
opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the
previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian,
and makes clear exactly what you think should change.

A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages,
and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what
Debian Policy should say today.

-- 
Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: