On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 02:07:42PM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Simon Chopin <chopin.si...@gmail.com>, 2012-01-09, 13:38:
> >>As a side note, for extra safety it'd be good to make sure that
> >>if ever these symbols are used, the generated dependency is
> >>either unsatisfiable or strictly versioned. Unfortunately, the
> >>latter option is currently a bit difficult to implement; see bug
> >>#615940.
> >>
> >I don't understand how I could generate an unsatisfiable
> >dependency: if I write an enormous version, it just gets
> >overwritten:
> >
> >- (regex|optional)"^_ZN?St.*@Base$" 99
> >+ (regex|optional)"^_ZN?St.*@Base$" 0.6-1
> >
> >Note that it would solve the "strictly versioned" bit, at the cost
> >of a systematic lintian error. A bit too ugly for my taste.
>
> The dependency generated by dpkg-shlibdeps doesn't necessarily be in
> the "<library-name> (>= <version>)" format.
>
> In fact, by "strictly versioned" I meant "(= <current-version>)" not
> "(>= <current-version>)".
>
> You could take a look at these packages:
> - libvigaimpex3 ("strict" approach),
> - libdrm-radeon1 ("unsatisfiable" approach).Thanks for that. I have used the unsatisfiable approach, as I find it easier to understand how it works (no need to read the debian/rules). I will go and ask the previous maintainer for sponsorship, assuming there's no other element that needs fixing. Regards, Simon
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
