On 22/01/11 01:57, Xyne wrote:
So if I wrote bindings to libalpm in Haskell (haskell-libalpm) and then created a package with a binary that used those bindings (foo), then readelf's output would not indicate libalpm?
Short answer is probably not... especially if you use -Wl,--as-needed. Looking at the "readelf -d" output for pacman and libalpm.so might be informative to understanding this.
<snip>
Forget that for a moment though and answer this instead: Can you think of any way other than direct specification that would guarantee that all dependencies are installed with a package (presuming that we know exactly what a package depends on). E.g. if a package depends on foo and foo-bar, then foo-bar clearly suffices, but how would you formally guarantee something such as glibc?
If an Arch system can natively install packages with pacman, I then can make the guarantee that glibc on that system.
Allan
