Jonathan Nieder <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi again,
>
> Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
>> That would be the wrong thing to check. We want to verify if it's a
>> ELF object and if not then we skip it. And we should not skip it silently
>> IMO as it was explicitly passed in a list of stuff to analyze.
>>
>> We already have the required Dpkg::Shlibs::Objdump::is_elf().
>
> I went back to make this change but I decided I do not want it. It
> would have brought on two regressions:
>
> 1. dpkg-shlibdeps currently supports non-ELF files as long as objdump
> does. Of course all Debian architectures use ELF by default, but
> there are users for dpkg outside of Debian (fink on Mac OS X, for
> example). Can we assume that all users of dpkg-shlibdeps use ELF
> objects exclusively?
>
> If we can, dpkg-shlibdeps could be simplified a lot by using readelf
> instead of objdump. Thatâs something I would enjoy doing.
>
> 2. dpkg-shlibdeps currently complains if you pass it some random
> garbage. Maybe it would be nice to have a separate accept-anything
> mode so you can throw your entire debian/tmp at it. Thatâs not my
> itch.
>
> I was looking to ignore interpreted files because they are the only
> files other than object files that are supposed to be marked
> executable and placed in /usr/bin or /usr/lib/package. This is better
> than suppressing all errors because errors are useful.
>
> Meanwhile I do not want to break other peopleâs workflows. So I
> would be very interested in hearing concrete problems this imposes, so
> I can find a way to avoid breakage without unnecessary complication.
>
> Jonathan
What is wrong with excluding only scripts, those files begining with a
shebang token? The test for this is easy and you still get errors for
other files that objdump doesn't understand.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
