[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dependency problem?

From: Simon Josefsson
Subject: Re: Dependency problem?
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:36:20 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110005 (No Gnus v0.5) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Russ Allbery <address@hidden> writes:

> Russ Allbery <address@hidden> writes:
>> Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Why doesn't the shishi package automatically depend on libshishi?
>>> address@hidden:~/src/shishi$ apt-cache show shishi|grep Depend
>>> Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.6-6)
>>> address@hidden:~/src/shishi$
>>> I thought the control file line
>>> Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}
>>> would have taken care of that.
>> Uh, hm.  In order for dh_shlibdeps to pick this up automatically, since
>> the library package is built as part of the same source package, it
>> needs to have a line like:
>>     dh_shlibdeps -L libshishi0 -l$(CURDIR)/debian/libshishi0/usr/lib
>> to point it to the uninstalled shared libraries.
> This would work great if dh_shlibdeps took more than one -L option, but it
> doesn't.
> However, some other magic is still happening here that causes this to work
> provided dh_makeshlibs has already been run for the given library, and I'm
> not entirely sure why.  That makes me think that the -L option is actually
> unnecessary, but the man pages have no hint of that.
> Anyway, all this finally reduces to the discovery that the dependencies
> are broken unless the libraries are built first, since otherwise
> dh_shlibdeps is run for the binary packages before the libraries get
> dh_makeshlibs and the libraries are not found.  Reordering the packages in
> debian/control to put the libraries first fixes the problem.

Verified with the daily builds today, they seem fine.  Thanks for
tracking this down!

> The mystifying part, though, is that Heimdal uses CDBS, builds tons of
> shared libraries, lists them last in debian/control, and doesn't seem to
> have this problem.  So clearly I'm still missing something somewhere.  But
> the reordering at least fixes the immediate problem.
> I'm pondering what bugs need to be filed.  I think there's a cdbs bug here
> somewhere and possibly a debhelper bug, but I'm not sure.

I'm satisfied now, but if you have time, reporting this somewhere seem
like a good thing.  Having the package order in the control file
affect things like this is confusing.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]