On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 08:29:52AM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - Leave the .la files in place; -dev packages need to depend on -dev > > packages corresponding to those runtime dependencies that are also built > > using libtool. This is the status quo. > If we do this (which I think we should for now), I would suggest that > we have a debhelper script analogous to dh_shlibdeps that parses .la > files to automatically generate -dev build dependencies, and that this > should also be fixed if libtool is fixed (and should detect whether it > is using a fixed libtool). Then maintainers of libraries that use > libtool will automatically get the -dev dependencies required to > satisfy issues with libtool now, and if/when libtool is fixed, those > dependencies can disappear automatically without having to have all > the maintainers go through a lot of trouble twice. > My suggestion doesn't solve the problem, but it does make it easier to > deal with. Maybe this already exists and I'm just not aware of it. > I've been thinking about writing this for a while since I maintain > several libraries that use libtool and have made the mistake of > forgetting a -dev dependency before. It doesn't exist; I think it's a great idea. Perhaps a tool named dh_libtool, which populates a substvar named ${libtool:Depends}? FWIW, detecting a fixed libtool would be rather difficult, since it's the libtool used by the depending application which does the recursion and therefore needs to be fixed. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature