On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Which is why all shared libraries should use at least trivial symbol
> versioning that assigns all symbols a version that changes with the
> SONAME.
Perhaps a pedantic/info lintian complaint is in order?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.or
Andrey Rahmatullin writes:
> If your app is linked against libavcodec53 and against libavdevice53 and
> libavdevice53 is linked against libavcodec54 and libavcodec* doesn't use
> symbol versioning, your app will crash because of symbol conflicts.
Which is why all shared libraries should use at l
Please ignore the mail below, I think I understand that part now.
libavdevice53 itself depends on libavcodec5{3|4} depending on where it
comes from.
Paul
On 21-03-13 08:04, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
> On 21-03-13 07:46, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 07:17:50PM +01
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 08:04:10AM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> >>> Maybe I've picked the wrong example, the actual problem was with
> >>> libavdevice53, the same soname is used for either 0.8.5-1 and 9.3-1,
> >>> but 9.3-1 links to libavcodec54 while 0.8.5-1 links to libavcodec53, so
> >>> my binar
Hi Andrey,
On 21-03-13 07:46, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 07:17:50PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
>>> Maybe I've picked the wrong example, the actual problem was with
>>> libavdevice53, the same soname is used for either 0.8.5-1 and 9.3-1,
>>> but 9.3-1 links to libavcodec54 w
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 07:17:50PM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> > Maybe I've picked the wrong example, the actual problem was with
> > libavdevice53, the same soname is used for either 0.8.5-1 and 9.3-1,
> > but 9.3-1 links to libavcodec54 while 0.8.5-1 links to libavcodec53, so
> > my binary ended
On 20-03-13 15:54, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> Maybe I've picked the wrong example, the actual problem was with
> libavdevice53, the same soname is used for either 0.8.5-1 and 9.3-1,
> but 9.3-1 links to libavcodec54 while 0.8.5-1 links to libavcodec53, so
> my binary ended up importing either libavcod
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 03:54:13PM +0100, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> Maybe I've picked the wrong example, the actual problem was with
> libavdevice53, the same soname is used for either 0.8.5-1 and 9.3-1,
> but 9.3-1 links to libavcodec54 while 0.8.5-1 links to libavcodec53, so
> my binary ended up im
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:10:51 -0700
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Antonio Ospite writes:
>
> > Should I restrict the Depends for the binary packages by hand in
> > debian/control? For example adding:
>
> > libavcodec53 (<< 6:9)
>
> > to the binary package I am interested in restricting?
>
> Yes.
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:51:26 +0100
Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Antonio Ospite , 2013-03-19, 16:15:
> >for a package I am working on, I am setting versioned Build-Depends, to
> >avoid using newer libav versions which would break compilation, e.g.:
> >
> > libavcodec-dev (<< 6:9)
> >
> >Compilation
* Antonio Ospite , 2013-03-19, 16:15:
for a package I am working on, I am setting versioned Build-Depends, to
avoid using newer libav versions which would break compilation, e.g.:
libavcodec-dev (<< 6:9)
Compilation under pbuilder for Sid goes fine, but the binary packages
are still a
Antonio Ospite writes:
> Should I restrict the Depends for the binary packages by hand in
> debian/control? For example adding:
> libavcodec53 (<< 6:9)
> to the binary package I am interested in restricting?
Yes. The shared library dependency information otherwise comes from
shlibs/symb
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 04:15:57PM +0100, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> Compilation under pbuilder for Sid goes fine, but the binary packages
> are still allowed to be installed with newer libav binary packages:
>
>libavcodec53 (>= 6:0.8.3-1~) | libavcodec-extra-53 (>= 6:0.8.5)
Of course, becaus
Hi,
for a package I am working on, I am setting versioned Build-Depends, to
avoid using newer libav versions which would break compilation, e.g.:
libavcodec-dev (<< 6:9)
Compilation under pbuilder for Sid goes fine, but the binary packages
are still allowed to be installed with newer lib
On 25-May-2002 Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2002 11:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
> "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >
>>
>> auto-apt only detects "file not found" and does a look up in the file list
>> for
>> the package which owns it. It is not of much help during the pac
On Fri, 24 May 2002 11:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> auto-apt only detects "file not found" and does a look up in the file list for
> the package which owns it. It is not of much help during the package build.
It installs the package.
--
[EMAIL
On 05/24/02 11:37:42 -0500 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 05:18:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>> Well, you could try running the program through strace, and then look at
>> all the opened files (with the proper strace flag) and then run dpkg -S
>> on them.
>
> Sounds like a good
On 24-May-2002 Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 11:37:42AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a good enough heuristic to be worth implementing, if someone
>> has the interest.
>
> Someone already had the interest, and implemented it: auto-apt.
>
auto-apt only detects
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 11:37:42AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Sounds like a good enough heuristic to be worth implementing, if someone
> has the interest.
Someone already had the interest, and implemented it: auto-apt.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 05:18:13PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:45:47PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:39:16PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> > > I have just discovered (via a bug report) that dict and dictd
> > > depend on netbase. (dict
>
> Well, you could try running the program through strace, and then look at
> all the opened files (with the proper strace flag) and then run dpkg -S
> on them.
>
> Same as for autodetecting build depends.
>
you still miss programs called from maintainer scripts (or any script for that
matter
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:45:47PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:39:16PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> > I have just discovered (via a bug report) that dict and dictd
> > depend on netbase. (dict and dictd communicate with each other using
> > the TCP/IP protocol.)
On 23-May-2002 Bob Hilliard wrote:
> I have just discovered (via a bug report) that dict and dictd
> depend on netbase. (dict and dictd communicate with each other using
> the TCP/IP protocol.) Since dictd has been in debian for over four
> years without declaring the dependency, this indi
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:39:16PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> I have just discovered (via a bug report) that dict and dictd
> depend on netbase. (dict and dictd communicate with each other using
> the TCP/IP protocol.) Since dictd has been in debian for over four
> years without declaring
I have just discovered (via a bug report) that dict and dictd
depend on netbase. (dict and dictd communicate with each other using
the TCP/IP protocol.) Since dictd has been in debian for over four
years without declaring the dependency, this indicates that netbase is
almost universally ins
25 matches
Mail list logo
