Raphael Hertzog wrote: > For me the only significant advantage of this proposed format is that it > offers the possibility to add additional automatic dependencies at the > package level and not only at the symbol level. > > Joey, how would you integrate this new scheme if I decided to reuse the > shlibs file as you proposed? > > Currently my plan was simply to have people add one (or more) calls > to dpkg-gensymbols in the build process (between dh_installdeb > and dh_shlibdeps, and possibly integrated within dh_makeshlibs too). > > Now, if we have people store symbols in shlibs file, it means that > dh_installdeb would install the shlibs file with symbols. That could be > almost enough except that we really want a check that the information > stored in those files matches the reality so we need to call > dpkg-gensymbols either to update the file with real symbol information or > at least to verify it and fail it it doesn't match. > > How can we make sure that this second step actually happens in the build > process? Would you accept to modifiy dh_installdeb for this? > > Hum... it doesn't sound so complicated after all. What do others think?
Well, bear in mind that I was basically only bikeshedding.. It would actually be dh_makeshlibs that would, as part of its creation process for the shlibs file, presumably call dpkg-gensymbols, or do whatever it needed to do to get the symbol info into the file. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
