Steve Langasek wrote: [snip] > I find four packages in the archive that are picking up a dependency on > 'binutils' by way of shlibs: ggcov, nitpic, skyeye, and sysprof. > > nitpic needs libbfd-2.16.91.so, that's nice... > > ggcov, sysprof, and skyeye at least manage to have binary packages in stable > that depend on the matching version of binutils. > > But all four packages are buggy, as is binutils for providing broken shlibs. > The shlibs provided by binutils are effectively not supportable in a stable > release; which means that until binutils has reasonable shlibs (perhaps > using a virtual package name, the way apt does for its library?), packages > should not be dynamically linking to libbfd.
FYI, upstream has no plans to introduce a stable interface to libbfd ever (for the same reason the kernel folks don't do a stable device driver binary interface). Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
