On 2012-04-07 21:27 +0200, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Sven Joachim <svenj...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> It dlopens libssl.so which is not good, since that file only exists if
>> libssl-dev is installed.
>
> Are you sure about that.
Yes, use "dpkg -S libssl.so" to convince yourself.
>> ls -l libssl.*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 634382 Mar 31 12:00 libssl.a
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Mar 31 12:00 libssl.so -> libssl.so.1.0.0
Those two files don't change name when the library changes soname, so
they cannot be in the package with the library and must go to the -dev
package.
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 383600 Mar 31 12:00 libssl.so.1.0.0
>
> I've always thought that libX.so needs to be a symbolic link because the
> executables don't have the full name of the library. They link
> against libX.a.
No, that would be static linking.
> Still, I do believe that there is a stipulation in the dynamic linking
> infrastructure that libX.so points to the most recent version of the
> library. At least, I think that used to be the case.
See § 8 of the Debian Policy Manual for how shared (and static)
libraries work in Debian.
Cheers,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
