On 29/08/10 17:50, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 21:35 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 14:44 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> Actually, you're not passing the file names to dh_shlibdeps, but
>> directly to dpkg-shlibdeps. 
>> According to 4.4.3 of Debian's new maintainer's guide [1] the
>> recommended way would be to pass customized arguments to the debhelper
>> tools after " -- ", so that they get passed to the respective dpkg tools
>> (or whatever the dh_tool is a wrapper for).
>> However, this does not seem to work here for some reason.
>> $ dpkg-shlibdeps <some>/<file>.pd_linux 
>> actually creates a reasonable debian/substvars file.
>> $ dh_shlibdeps -- <some>/<file>.pd_linux
>> which is supposed to do exactly the same (according to the
>> documentation) does not seem to find a file to check for libraries. 
>> So, I guess "dh_shlibdeps -- " is not passing _all_ arguments to
>> dpkg-shlibdeps? My perl skills are too limited to investigate the reason
>> for this behaviour myself. 
>> Since the recommended way is not working, I guess it is OK to call
>> dpkg-shlibdeps directly in the pd-packages (as you, Hans, did in
>> pd-motex and pd-pmpd)? Or what do you (all) think?\
> That sounds very familiar.  I think I tried dh_shlibdeps first also, and
> then went with dpkg-shlibdeps for that reason.

Ah, yes, there is bug #35733 about it. I've pinged the bug report.

Felipe Sateler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to