On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:57:16AM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:09:37AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:29:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > But folding it into shlibdeps at least would remove all those warnings > > > > that were created by shlibdeps. > > > > What warnings were created by shlibdeps? I'm not sure what you're > > > referring to here. > > > Sorry. I had a short look at some packages and all redundant > > dependencies were created by shlibdeps. It doesn't seem to make sense to > > have a list by maintainer when the dependencies weren't added by > > him/her. Or did I misunderstand what this discussion is about? > > Yes, I'm afraid you did. The behavior of dpkg-shlibdeps is correct: it > documents the packages that must be present on the system in order for the > binaries to work. The bug we're discussing happens at the ELF linker level > -- you can't have dpkg-shlibdeps decide to ignore some of these libs, > because the *binary* still embeds references to them and if they're missing, > the binary will not work. > > So the fix is to get our binaries to stop embedding references to libraries > they don't need, then dpkg-shlibdeps will do the right thing automatically.
A first step in that direction would be to fix .la, .pc and -config files so that they only give the needed libraries. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
