Control: tag -1 moreinfo Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org> (27/04/2013): > I identified three packages that don't ship a SONAME symlink and cause > spurious creation and removal of this link by ldconfig. Spurious since > the packages themselves don't call ldconfig, so another installation > will trigger the ldconfig run - 2 seconds or 2 months later. > > As this makes the (dis-)appearance nondeterministic, this could produce > heisenbugs that will be hard to debug. So better ship the link in the > package and let dpkg instead of ldconfig manage creation/removal. I'm not sure about the practical impact, besides “it's not nice to have undeterministic behaviours”. AFAICT, the extra .so doesn't hurt when it's here (you wouldn't suggest shipping it in the package otherwise, right?), and nobody has ever complained about its being missing AFAICT from your bug report. So I guess I'll prefer sticking to the current status quo… > libusb-dev is one of them (#706278), due to the > /usr/lib/<triplet>/libusb.so -> /lib/<triplet>/libusb-0.1.so.4.4.4 link. > The SONAME is libusb-0.1.so.4 and ldconfig will create > /usr/lib/<triplet>/libusb-0.1.so.4 -> libusb.so > > The attached patch adds this link to the libusb-dev package: > /usr/lib/<triplet>/libusb-0.1.so.4 > /lib/<triplet>/libusb-0.1.so.4 > > As libusb builds an udeb, too, this will probably have to wait for r1. … especially since that was never applied in unstable anyway. Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature