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

Bug#648043: Too strict dependencies on binutils, maybe due to inappropriate dynamic linking with binutils libraries?

Package: nitpic
Version: 0.1-12

The nitpic package seems to depend on a very particular version of

# info: nitpic depends on binutils << (ok, testing has
# info: nitpic depends on binutils >= (ok, testing
  has version

hence blocking migration of newer binutils to testing ("Updating
binutils makes 2 non-depending packages uninstallable on i386: lush,
nitpic", see
http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?package=binutils), and
also blocking anything which depends on newer binutils, e.g., version
3.0.0-6 of the linux-2.6 package.

I suspect the dependencies are put in automagically because of
dynamically (rather than statically) linking to one or both of libbfd
and libopcodes. Which is a bad thing to do, as explained in the thread

I have already filed a similar bug report on the other package, lush,
which blocks binutils in a similar way, see

/Niels Möller

Niels Möller. PGP-encrypted email is preferred. Keyid C0B98E26.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.

Reply to: