On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, Kapil Arya wrote: > PS: Please also have a look at libdmtcpaware1.postinst file. I have > used the template and inserted the "ldconfig"; it suppressed lintian > error/warning, but I am not sure if this is the correct way.
yeap -- should not have been necessary... if you add a call to dh_makeshlibs in rules it should do that iirc NB using debhelper 7 format of debian/rules I already started forgetting about all those manual things ;-) > > | dmtcp_1.2.0+svn864-1~nd09.04+1_i386.build FAILED > > | dmtcp_1.2.0+svn864-1~nd09.04+1_amd64.build FAILED > > `--- > This is where I have some problem reproducing the failure. I tried > building it on Ubuntu9.10 and 10.10, both 32-bit, but it built just > fine. I didn't see any issues. I tried by downloading the files from > mentors.debian.net and then doing a dpkg-source followed by > dpkg-buildpackage. Can you tell me how to reproduce these failures? > Should I run a different set of commands? the only obvious difference was that in my case it was '-B' build, i.e. " binary-only build, limited to architecture dependent packages"; but I do not see how it should have impacted the build... I will check tomorrow in greater detail > > * dynamic library > > - -dev package should carry symlink for .so file, not the lib package > > (carrying versioned one) > Not sure if I understood it correctly. I have some doubts about the > .so files and various versions of them which are often symlinks in > either direction. So here are a few questions: ;-) should be quite uniform actually... the ultimate source is the Debian bible : http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-runtime but at times it becomes too evolved, and many details are usually not directly relevant since taken care of by dh_* helpers: The run-time library package should include the symbolic link for the SONAME that ldconfig would create for the shared libraries. For example, the libgdbm3 package should include a symbolic link from /usr/lib/libgdbm.so.3 to libgdbm.so.3.0.0. This is needed so that the dynamic linker (for example ld.so or ld-linux.so.*) can find the library between the time that dpkg installs it and the time that ldconfig is run in the postinst script.[50] and then check section "8.4 Development files" for -dev package The development package should contain a symlink for the associated shared library without a version number. For example, the libgdbm-dev package should include a symlink from /usr/lib/libgdbm.so to libgdbm.so.3.0.0. This symlink is needed by the linker (ld) when compiling packages, as it will only look for libgdbm.so when compiling dynamically. a bit more detailed reference would be Debian Library Packaging guide http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html which is a bit aged as well but still has nice description on versions > 1b. Currently, the toplevel Makefile is renaming the library from > libdmtcpaware.so to libdmtcpaware.so.1. Is this the correct approach? I bet there is a more 'standard' way... just would need to dig into autotools manual... do not recall top of the head > 2. Should libdmtcpaware1-dev package install a symlink > /usr/lib/libdmtcpaware.so --> libdmtcpaware.so.1? yes, but most probably unversioned -dev would be enough (i.e. libdmtcpaware-dev) > 3. I am really confused about the library versioning and symlinking. > Can you provide me some pointers on this? ;-) above. The global reasoning : you might have multiple (so)versions of libraries installed (i.e. libdmtcpaware1, libdmtcpaware2, ...), but -dev will install a single symlink for the .so to point to the corresponding (most uptodate) library > I have made some changes, please have a look and tell me what to do. Thanks. will have better look (and reproducing that error) tomorrow/day after ... meanwhile sortout symlinks/ldconfig issues > I was not sure whether to put 1 of 1.0 or 1.0.0, so I chose the middle > one :-). Changed to plain 1 now :-). to say the truth... I do not recall if .so.major.minor.rev needs to be enforced if soversion is just 'major' - shame on me... may be there is no reason for full version, can't come up with 'why not' (time to go to sleep I guess) -- I see few packages installing directly just so.major... , so may be it would be ok as well. may be I will figure it out tomorrow and will come back to scream here ;-) -- =------------------------------------------------------------------= Keep in touch www.onerussian.com Yaroslav Halchenko www.ohloh.net/accounts/yarikoptic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110201020413.gn21...@onerussian.com
