On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 13:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Having explained all that I need help, I have a workround of simply > removing the symlinks from the libdiscover udeb (this works for ARM) > but is taht correct and if so do I file a bug against discover? or is > this a mklibs error as it shouldnt try to reference a symlink and > hence taht needs a bug? or is it a case of I need to figure out why > the ordering is wrong on ARM? (I have been at this for three days now > :-(
I don't think discover should be shipping the .so symlink in the udeb, since udebs aren't used for compiling against. However, it seems fairly clear that mklibs ought not to be blowing up either. I suggest you file both against discover (with severity minor) and against mklibs (with severity important). The ordering shouldn't be significant. It's slightly curious that it's different on ARM compared to other platforms, but this isn't a problem as such. I'll see about making a patch for mklibs tomorrow. p. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
