Re: (not) simplifying dpkg-shlibdeps with readelf

[Russ Allbery]

Hector Oron  writes:
> 2010/4/28 Russ Allbery :
> [...]
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "flat binaries" here.

> I meant
> http://www.beyondlogic.org/uClinux/bflt.htm

Ah, thank you.  I hadn't known about that.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mxwmqflu@windlord.stanford.edu

postfix: should use "${Newline}" instead of "${Newline} " in debian/vars.in

[Christian PERRIER]

Package: postfix
Severity: normal

From a discussion in -i18n, followed up in -dpkg

Postfix packages descriptions are now prepended by two spaces, making
them hard-formatted and looking ugly on packages.debian.org.

Quoting Raphael Hertzog (hert...@debian.org):
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > Description: CDB map support for Postfix
> >  ${Description}
> >  .
> >  This provides support for CDB (constant database) maps in Postfix. If you
> >  plan to use CDB maps with Postfix, you need this.
> > 
> > the source tree also has debian/vars.in:
> > 
> > Description=Postfix is Wietse Venema's mail transport agent that started 
> > life as an${Newline} alternative to the widely-used Sendmail program.
> >   Postfix attempts to${Newline} be fast, easy to administer, and secure, 
> > while at the same time being${Newline} sendmail compatible enough to
> > not upset existing users. Thus, the outside${Newline} has a sendmail-ish 
> > flavor, but the inside is completely different.
> > 
> [...]
> > The problem, here, is that, apparently ${Newline} gets expanded 
> > to "\n " and not "\n".
> 
> ${Newline} gets expanded to "\n" but the substvar substitution is
> done on the content of the field after it has been parsed and not before
> which means that you don't get to see/deal with the initial space any
> more.
> 
> This was probably different in older version of dpkg-dev but it has never
> been codified one way or another. The current approach is cleaner as you
> can put any value in the substvar and it should work. Before if you forgot
> the space you would have generated something invalid...
> 
> This was changed in dpkg-dev 1.15.5. I would suggest to fix postfix
> to match the new behaviour (and build-depend on dpkg-dev (>= 1.15.5)
> to avoid problems with older dpkg-dev).
> 
> I just added a paragraph in deb-substvars(5) to document this behaviour.
> 
> Cheers,
> -- 
> Raphaël Hertzog
> 
> Like what I do? Sponsor me: 
> http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/
> My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100429062120.gb3...@rivendell
> 
> 
> 
>  ** CRM114 Whitelisted by: WHITELIST **
> 

-- 





signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: (not) simplifying dpkg-shlibdeps with readelf

[Simon Richter]

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:24:35AM +0200, Hector Oron wrote:

> > I see no reason why embedded platforms can't use ELF.  ELF is very common
> > in the embedded world even entirely apart from Linux.

There is some effort to move from bFLT to something called "FDPIC ELF",
which is basically ELF with runtime relocation of binaries and
libraries, and an ABI extension that allows per-process instantiation of
writeable segments. The difficulty there is that this format is severely
underdocumented, and no C library supports it out of the box in their
dynamic linker.

I think in the long run everything will be ELF.

> Sometimes ELF is not best for XIP (eXecute In Place) and other formats
> do better. I wonder if Debian will be able to cope with those
> sometime.

XIP is a subset of the "per-process instantiation" problem.

> What about mingw32 targets? (I have not worked with)
> Some people build Debian packages for such target.

The current objdump based implementation is already dependent on ELF, as
only ELF uses the string "NEEDED".

   Simon


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100429123803.gb7...@honey.hogyros.de

Re: (not) simplifying dpkg-shlibdeps with readelf

[Hector Oron]

Hello,

2010/4/28 Russ Allbery :
[...]
> I'm not sure what you mean by "flat binaries" here.

I meant
http://www.beyondlogic.org/uClinux/bflt.htm

[...]
> I see no reason why embedded platforms can't use ELF.  ELF is very common
> in the embedded world even entirely apart from Linux.

Sometimes ELF is not best for XIP (eXecute In Place) and other formats
do better. I wonder if Debian will be able to cope with those
sometime.

What about mingw32 targets? (I have not worked with)
Some people build Debian packages for such target.

Kind regards,
-- 
 Héctor Orón


"Our Sun unleashes tremendous flares expelling hot gas into the Solar
System, which one day will disconnect us."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/o2kdd0a3d701004290224w13a7fb25uc08cd03dc6b64...@mail.gmail.com