Re: ldconfig warnings

1997-12-28 Thread Joey Hess
David Engel wrote: > It's not a problem if you don't, as the manual says, run ldconfig from > the preinst or postrm scripts. To say it simpler, ldconfig should > only be run from the postinst script. Well, I thought that when I saw the problem happen, I had ldconfig only in my postinst. But on re

Re: ldconfig warnings

1997-12-28 Thread David Engel
On Fri, Dec 26, 1997 at 11:16:15PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Adam P. Harris wrote: > > Maybe that's not necessary. Rob Browning post got me thinking: even if > > you create the symlink in `debian/tmp/...', order it properly w.r.t. the > > actual shared lib, you do still need to call ldconfig in

Re: ldconfig warnings

1997-12-27 Thread Joey Hess
Adam P. Harris wrote: > >Seems as if the ldso maintainer and the dpkg maintainer were the two best > >candidates to providing that explanation. Cc'd to them. > Maybe that's not necessary. Rob Browning post got me thinking: even if > you create the symlink in `debian/tmp/...', order it proper

Re: ldconfig warnings

1997-12-27 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) wrote on 26.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [You (Kai Henningsen)] > >What we need most is a coherent explanation of what happens, why it > >happens, and why the usual strategies are right or wrong. > > >Seems as if the ldso maintainer and the dpkg maintainer w

Re: ldconfig warnings

1997-12-26 Thread Adam P. Harris
[You (Kai Henningsen)] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Browning) wrote on 23.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >re.csres.utexas.edu>: >> "Adam P. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I think you're (a bit) unduly alarmed. From my interpretation, it's >> > not a bug to call `ldconfig' from postinst, it jus

Re: ldconfig warnings

1997-12-25 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Browning) wrote on 23.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Adam P. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think you're (a bit) unduly alarmed. From my interpretation, it's > > not a bug to call `ldconfig' from postinst, it just shouldn't be > > necessary. So why do it if

Re: ldconfig warnings

1997-12-25 Thread Rob Browning
"Adam P. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think you're (a bit) unduly alarmed. From my interpretation, it's > not a bug to call `ldconfig' from postinst, it just shouldn't be > necessary. So why do it if it doesn't have to be done? You must call ldconfig from the postinst if you install

Re: ldconfig warnings

1997-12-22 Thread Adam P. Harris
[CC'ing debian-policy] "Jim" == Jim Pick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >[I wrote] >> Yes, it is discussed in the Debian Packaging Manual, section 12. >> See: /usr/doc/dpkg/packaging.html/ch-sharedlibs.html >> You should just go ahead and file bugs against packages which don't >> include the .so li