Re: Bug#423933: libbfd-2.17.so not found

[Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>]

Steve Langasek wrote:
[snip]
> I find four packages in the archive that are picking up a dependency on
> 'binutils' by way of shlibs: ggcov, nitpic, skyeye, and sysprof.
> 
> nitpic needs libbfd-2.16.91.so, that's nice...
> 
> ggcov, sysprof, and skyeye at least manage to have binary packages in stable
> that depend on the matching version of binutils.
> 
> But all four packages are buggy, as is binutils for providing broken shlibs.
> The shlibs provided by binutils are effectively not supportable in a stable
> release; which means that until binutils has reasonable shlibs (perhaps
> using a virtual package name, the way apt does for its library?), packages
> should not be dynamically linking to libbfd.

FYI, upstream has no plans to introduce a stable interface to libbfd
ever (for the same reason the kernel folks don't do a stable device
driver binary interface).


Thiemo