Niels Thykier:
> [...] The goal for this change is to simplify udeb handling to remove
> one papercut /in the common case/ for udeb packages in two forms:
>
> 1) Packages that need to add a new udeb will have one less step to
> worry about when they follow the naming convention for udebs.
>
> 2) /Some/ existing udeb producing packages will be able to drop their
> manual overrides (assuming they follow this convention as well).
> An example of a package that would benefit is bind9, where we can
> remove about 11 lines[4].
>
> While most packages seem follow the convention, there are exceptions.
> As an example, I spotted fontconfig[5] which will not benefit from this
> change. Instead, it (and other exceptions) will have to keep --add-udeb.
>
> Thanks,
> ~Niels
>
> [...]
To clarify, there are two requirements for being able to use this change:
1) Naming convention "X" vs. "X-udeb".
2) There must be a 1:1 between X and its udeb. For packages that
"merge" multiple debs into a single udeb, you will also need an
--add-udeb (combined with multiple -p or even an -a argument).
(The second bit was not explicit in my previous mail).
The covered case therefore matches the pattern:
dh_makeshlibs -pX --add-udeb=X-udeb ...
Thanks,
~Niels
