On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 06:28:04AM +0100, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 21:11 -0800, tony mancill wrote: > > I guess it must be doing some kind of dynamic loading stuff? OTOH, it > seems to be just linked as a plain shared lib: > $ libtree /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libebook-contacts-1.2.so.4.0.0 > libebook-contacts-1.2.so.4 > ├── libedataserver-1.2.so.27 [ld.so.conf] > ... > ├── libphonenumber.so.8 [ld.so.conf] > │ ├── libprotobuf.so.23 [ld.so.conf] > │ │ └── libz.so.1 [ld.so.conf] > │ ├── libabsl_throw_delegate.so.20220623 [ld.so.conf] > │ ├── libabsl_strings.so.20220623 [ld.so.conf] > │ │ ├── libabsl_strings_internal.so.20220623 [ld.so.conf] > │ │ │ └── libabsl_raw_logging_internal.so.20220623 [ld.so.conf] > │ │ ├── libabsl_raw_logging_internal.so.20220623 [ld.so.conf] > │ │ └── libabsl_throw_delegate.so.20220623 [ld.so.conf] > │ ├── libabsl_raw_hash_set.so.20220623 [ld.so.conf] > │ ├── libabsl_hash.so.20220623 [ld.so.conf] > │ │ ├── libabsl_city.so.20220623 [ld.so.conf] > │ │ └── libabsl_low_level_hash.so.20220623 [ld.so.conf] > │ ├── libicui18n.so.72 [ld.so.conf] > │ └── libicuuc.so.72 [ld.so.conf] > ... > > > Yes... at least evolution, but that's the only thing I have, which > depends on it.
I notice that libebook-contacts wasn't part of of the protobuf transition [1], but it seems like it should have been a level 3 dependency. I'm not sure whether that's an issue with the transition tooling or if we're missing sufficient linkage between the packages. [1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/auto-protobuf.html > Maybe we should increase the severity, so that people will see it at > least via apt-listbugs? Ah, that's a good idea if we want to notify folks not to install libphonenumber8. Perhaps I shouldn't have reassigned the bug to evolution-data-server. Maybe we should create a new bug (or clone this one) and assign it to libphonenumber8?
