Re: Bug#423933: libbfd-2.17.so not found
On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 08:56:08PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > 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).
Sure; my objection is not to the frequent changes of the soname, but to the
Debian shlibs that wrongly declare that "binutils" can be relied upon to
satisfy the dependency.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: