On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 01:00 +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 3. Mai 2005 18:46 schrieb Adam C Powell IV:
> > On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 08:59 -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > > Package: illuminator
> > > dh_makeshlibs -a
> [...]
> > > dh_shlibdeps -a
> > > dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: could not find path for libluminate.so.6
>
> > Actually, since it built successfully on ten other arches, I'd conclude
> > this is a buggy sparc toolchain. What other explanation can you offer?
>
> Or you had luck on ten of them and one chokes about a missing option to
> dh_shlibdeps?
> [snip]
> AFAIK, it is pure luck if ldd works without those.
Interesting. I had never before used those options to dh_shlibdeps, and
for example, the babel package I just uploaded automatically created the
inter-package dependencies (well, almost, I had to put
"${shlibs:Depends}" in the executables which depended on the included
binaries).
Indeed, the i386 illuminator package I uploaded has the correct
dependency of illuminator-demo on libluminate6 within the illuminator
package. In fact, I just logged into my mirror lyre.mit.edu, and every
single arch's illuminator-demo package, from ia64 to m68k to hppa to
alpha, PPC, etc., depends on libluminate6, all of this built from the
exact same source which is failing on sparc.
Again, that it succeeds on *TEN* *architectures* and only fails on sparc
seems to be more than "pure luck". But if you insist, I can insert
these options by hand to work around sparc brokenness.
-Adam
--
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!
http://www.take6.com/albums/greatesthits.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
