On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Russ Allbery wrote: > I always use dependencies like >= 2.10 in shlibs files rather than the > more specific 2.10-1 because of this problem. I'm not sure if that's > the right general solution, but people who start from the seed files > should at least consider removing the Debian revision in cases like > this to make backporting easier.
Good point. Added to the wiki page. > * The new warnings from the dpkg-* tools warn about any binary Perl > module because all binary Perl modules use symbols from Perl itself but > traditionally aren't linked directly against libperl. (There was some > reason for this that I don't recall off-hand.) Should these warnings > just be ignored? Suppressed in some way? Should binary Perl modules > link against libperl? I haven't worked through the implications in my > head yet. This is not normal. http://git.debian.org/?p=dpkg/dpkg.git;a=commit;h=6e02b2ef46aadde5ce142bb42b58e3165253eb58 This change was precisely meant to silence those warnings. But it looks like this line is problematic: return exists $self->{flags}{DYNAMIC} and $self->{flags}{DYNAMIC} and exists $self->{SONAME} and $self->{SONAME}; It's parsed as: (return exists $self->{flags}{DYNAMIC}) and ... Replacing "and" by "&&" fixes the problem. It's weird because I'm pretty sure it worked before and I tested it. Anyway, it's fixed in git and will be in the next dpkg version. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]