RE: n00b lib packaging question

Am Dienstag, den 29.08.2006, 15:54 -0400 schrieb Jean-Sebastien Pilon: [..] > > What's inside libpcap-ring1.install and libpcap-ring-dev.install? You > > need to "copy" the files from debian/tmp to debian/$package > > > # cat debian/libpcap-ring1.install > usr/local/lib/lib*.so.* > > # cat deb

RE: n00b lib packaging question

> > Am Dienstag, den 29.08.2006, 12:44 -0400 schrieb Jean-Sebastien Pilon: > > > I am trying to create packages from sources for libpcap > compiled with > > the libpfring library. This compiles no problem. When I am packaging > > though... there are the issues coming up Wink > > > > # fakeroot

Re: n00b lib packaging question

Am Dienstag, den 29.08.2006, 12:44 -0400 schrieb Jean-Sebastien Pilon: > I am trying to create packages from sources for libpcap compiled with > the libpfring library. This compiles no problem. When I am packaging > though... there are the issues coming up Wink > > # fakeroot debian/rules clean >

n00b lib packaging question

Hello, I am trying to create packages from sources for libpcap compiled with the libpfring library. This compiles no problem. When I am packaging though... there are the issues coming up Wink # fakeroot debian/rules clean # debian/rules build # debian/rules binary till now it's ok i have 2 .d

Re: Lib packaging question

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes: > (Hint: You should call ldconfig in postinst if and only if $1 = > configure). http://www.nl.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9803/msg00338.html> Hint: I already know what I'm talking about. You were wrong, give up and admit it. (You said "Nop

Re: Lib packaging question

James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes: > > > > postinst: > > > ldconfig > > > > Nope. > > Bzzt, wrong answer, you lose, humans die. > > RTFM (the latest versions, still in Incoming). The packaging manual > got this wrong for a long time, and th

Re: Lib packaging question

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes: > Q: What's `FUD' mean? :FUD: /fuhd/ /n./ Defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering

Re: Lib packaging question

> "James" == James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: James> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes: >> > postinst: > ldconfig >> >> Nope. James> Bzzt, wrong answer, you lose, humans die. James> RTFM (the latest versions, still in Incoming). The James> packagi

Re: Lib packaging question

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes: > > postinst: > > ldconfig > > Nope. Bzzt, wrong answer, you lose, humans die. RTFM (the latest versions, still in Incoming). The packaging manual got this wrong for a long time, and the issue wasn't helped by people spreading FUD about it. -- J

Re: Lib packaging question

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl M. Hegbloom) writes: > > "shaleh" == shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > shaleh> When creating lib packages, which package should link > shaleh> libfoo.so.?.? to libfoo.so?? Should the -dev or the lib > shaleh> itself?? > > The lib itself. Nope. Pleas

Re: Lib packaging question

> "Karl" == Karl M Hegbloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "shaleh" == shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: shaleh> When creating lib packages, which package should link shaleh> libfoo.so.?.? to libfoo.so?? Should the -dev or the lib shaleh> itself?? Karl> postrm: ldconfig

Re: Lib packaging question

> "shaleh" == shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: shaleh> When creating lib packages, which package should link shaleh> libfoo.so.?.? to libfoo.so?? Should the -dev or the lib shaleh> itself?? The lib itself. libfoo.so.1.2.3 libfoo.so -> libfoo.so.1.2.3 libfoo.so.1 -> libfoo

Lib packaging question

When creating lib packages, which package should link libfoo.so.?.? to libfoo.so?? Should the -dev or the lib itself?? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]