Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes:
> Hi!
>
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 13:55:00 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Package: dpkg-dev
>> Version: 1.15.4.1
>> Severity: normal
>> File: /usr/bin/dpkg-shlibdeps
>
>> in the process of packaging the Intel pro c/c++ compiler I run into
>> the problem that their libraries have broken "SONAME libfoo.so". They
>> do not have any soversion at all. Because of this dpkg-shlibdeps
>> ignores those libraries completly and one can not create a shlibs
>> entry for them.
>>
>> I think it would be better if a soversion of 0 would be assumed in
>> such cases so that one can still get automatic dependencies for such
>> libs. The change in dpkg-shlibdeps would be simple:
>
> [...]
>
>> If that is acceptable then please do clone the bug to dh_makeshlibs so
>> it automatically generates dependencies for such libs as well.
>
> I don't think this is acceptable at all, dpkg-shlibdeps should not be
> generating bogus information, if the library does not have it, then
> that's a problem with the library, you should bring this up with them,
> and discuss how they handle the stability of their ABI and possible
> incompatibilities, etc. This would also make it acceptable for Debian
> (and derivatives) to have such libraries which it's not.
Unfortunately this is a comercial binary only product and educating
them is at best a lengthy process. The stability of their ABI, or
rather lack thereof, is exactly why I want this. Currently any package
build with the intel c compiler needs to manually add
Depends: intel-icc-lib-<compiler version> (>= <compiler upstream version>),
intel-icc-lib-<compiler version> (>= <compiler upstream version>+1)
The code to generate that is rather ugly and I would rather not have
to duplicate it for every package being compiled with icc. This is
something that is far better kept in the .shlibs file. That is what
they ar for after all.
The ABI stability and possible incompatibilities of a library without
soversion is in no way worse than a library with soversion 0 that
never ever changes despite ABI changes. Every time the ABI changes I
need to change the package name and adjust the shlibs file.
As to the acceptablility of such libraries in Debian: They can already
enter Debian. They just can not use shlibs files. I would rather have
dpkg-shlibsdebs fail if such a library is used without shlibs entry
than have it silently be ignored. If such libraries are unacceptable
then lintian could check for them. Instead of a soversion of 0 a
soversion of -1 could be faked making it trivial to generate lintian
errors for them and the DAK could reject such packages.
> I'll wait for Raphaël's comments, but otherwise I think this report
> should just get closed.
>
> regards,
> guillem
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
