Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>>> "James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Ben> Hoo boy.. didn't we end up deciding this was wrong? > > James> Eh? No, we certainly did not. > > I'm pretty sure it's safe to call ldconfig unconditionally in > postinst, and that we ran into problems when we literally followed the > packaging manual.
It most assuredly is *NOT* safe and we did not run into problems when conditionalizing the call to ldconfig. If you don't believe me, please just think about the possible invocation of a postinst and what would happen if ldconfig was run in all of those situations (hint: libfoo.so*.dpkg-tmp). If you still don't believe me please provide evidence of these `problems' we allegedly encountered. -- James
