On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 00:18 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote: > 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.
You can also check out debian/rules in pd-motex and pd-pmpd. It passes the names of the .pd_linux files to dh_shlibdeps. .hc _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers