On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Florian Hinzmann wrote:
> The build dependency is fine. It's the binary depends that is
> missing.
Ouch! I didn't think of that one. I *did* remove all traces of libsasl7 and
friends from my system, so I knew the build would not be able to complete if
xfmail really needed old SASL...
> The NMU still links against libsasl:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/xfmail-sasl-stuff$ dpkg-deb -x xfmail_1.5.5-2.1_i386.deb
> nmu-binary
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/xfmail-sasl-stuff$ ldd nmu-binary/usr/
> bin/ lib/ share/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/xfmail-sasl-stuff$ ldd nmu-binary/usr/bin/xfmail |grep
> sasl
> libsasl2.so.2 => /usr/lib/libsasl2.so.2 (0xb7911000)
Oops, that's the new SASL. That means I have to at least do a new NMU
adding a build-dependency on libsasl2-dev... SASL usually changes APIs when
the ABI changes, so it doesn't make much sense to build-depend on
libsasl-dev usually.
> Two questions:
> 1) Is libsasl2-dev and libsasl2 going to be removed, too?
If they are, which is not probable in the near future, that will be because
libsasl3 hit the archive...
And by that time, I am sure xfmail will have a depends on libsasl2 that
will not let anyone forget to notify you about it before trying to remove
the package ;-)
> 2) Any idea why ${shlibs:Depends} does not include libsaslX?
No, probably some LD_LIBRARY_PATH or other issue that broke the shlibdeps
scanning. I will look the package over and tell you what I find.
Do you prefer I mail you patches, or that I clean up the mess with another
NMU?
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
