On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote: > On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 09:29:00AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > However, if objdump lists a library that ldd can't find the path for, and > > the > > library is mentioned in debian/shlibs.local, isn't it reasonable for > > dpkg-shlibdeps to assume that this local library is the one it's looking > > for? > > After all, passing LD_LIBRARY_PATH to ldd doesn't help the fact that we > > still have to go to debian/shlibs.local to find the binary package name. > > Why > > not suppress the warning, since it's pretty much meaningless in this case?
> > Further, the man page says that the debian/shlibs.local file has higher > > precedence than shlibs listings for installed packages. So even if ldd > > /does/ find a library with the same soname belonging to an installed > > package, > > it should still use the dependency name from shlibs.local, correct? > IIRC, shlibs.local isn't needed in this case, because we use > ldd/objdump. IOW, it will simply know that the library is contained in > the package, and ignore the self-dep. To be honest, I think shlibs.local > isn't need at all now, because dpkg-shlibdeps even checks > debian/*/DEBIAN/shlibs aswell. Ah. In that case, the preferred solution is to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH when calling dpkg-shlibdeps, and omit the shlibs.local file altogether? I didn't realize debian/*/DEBIAN/shlibs was looked at. Yes, that seems reasonable; I was just hoping to avoid redundancy for redundancy's sake (well, for the sake of suppressing an warning). But if shlibs.local is no longer necessary, then I guess there's no more redundancy. :) Is there any reason not to use this approach right now for packages uploaded to sid? Thanks, Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
