On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> > Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like
> > lintian and dh_shlibdeps?
> > 

> the other point is of course, whether tools like dh_shlibdeps and
> dh_strip work correctly.
> i can only say from experience, that they do.
> e.g. the binary Gem.pd_linux in the package "gem" is correctly stripped
> and the package depends on all packages that provide libraries the
> binary has been dynamically linked to.
> debian/rules does not extra care of shlibs.
> so it seems to "just work"

It seems it's not dh_strip who does the stripping. In the case of the
gem package it seems to happen already at compile time. After putting an
unstripped Gem.pd_linux in the temporary directory running dh_strip
won't touch it all. 

Also it seems as if dh_shlibdeps looks only for .so-files. I haven't
figured out what trickery was used in the gem package to let it find
also .pd_linux-files. But having a plain .pd-linux file in the temporary
directory and running dh_shlibdeps doesn't produce anything useful.


pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to