On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Aaron M. Ucko <u...@debian.org> wrote:
> I stand corrected:
>
> d-shlibmove --commit \
> --devunversioned \
> --multiarch \
> --exclude-la \
> --override s/libctpp2-2-dev/libctpp2-dev/ \
> --movedev "debian/tmp/usr/include/*" usr/include/ \
> debian/tmp/usr/lib/libctpp2.so
> Library package automatic movement utility
> devlibs error: There is no package matching [libc0.1-dev] and noone
> provides it, please report bug to d-shlibs maintainer
> make: *** [debian/stamp-local-shlibs-libctpp2] Error 1
>
> It looks like this error stems from d-devlibdeps, whose validate_package
> function fails on libc0.1-dev because apt-cache segfaults(!):
>
> $ apt-cache --no-generate show libc0.1-dev
> Segmentation fault
Is it normal to segfault? Asking because package exists on kFreeBSD's
though not on Linux.
> The override sidesteps this because d-devlibdeps's overridedevlibdeps
> function filters the resulting libc6-dev entry out altogether:
>
> function overridedevlibdeps () {
> # overrides necessary until the scheme is adopted.
> sed \
> "${OVERRIDE[@]/#/-e}" \
> [...]
> -e 's/libc6-dev//' \
> [...]
>
> As such, I'd recommend adjusting overridedevlibdeps to handle the other
> possible names:
>
> -e 's/libc0.[12]-dev//' \
> -e 's/libc6-dev//' \
> -e 's/libc6.1-dev//' \
>
> and adjusting the override accordingly (meanwhile broadening it slightly):
>
> --override='s/libc[0-9].[0-9]-dev//'
Yes Indeed. I will include this in next version of d-shlibs and for
the time being I will introduce this same override in rules file of
ctpp2 so we won't have any problem and once d-shlibs is in we can drop
this.
>
>> Thanks for the continuous support :-)
>
> No problem.
Cheers,
--
Vasudev Kamath
http://copyninja.info
copyninja@{frndk.de|vasudev.homelinux.net}
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
