[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.
Thanks,
Simon