[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Braakman) writes: > > Take a look at the postinsts for every package with a shared > > library. > > I did. But why assume they are correct? Someone reports a bug and > says "package should run ldconfig", maintainer says "okey I'll do > that".
I maintain and have done non-maintainer release for several shared library packages, and I *know* it did not happen that way. And please don't judge other maintainers by your own standards, I for one, won't add gratuitous program calls to my postinsts just because someone said I should. Perhaps you would, that doesn't mean that 90% of the shared library maintainers would. I also think someone might have noticed by know if this vast majority of shared libraries were doing it wrong; don't you? > > You seem fond of statistics, how many *don't* run ldconfig? > > Of the library packages installed on my system, eight. They are > comerr2g, e2fslibsg, fakeroot, ftplib, libgtk1, libmpeg1, libpaperg, > and procps. IIRC, Che's knows about libgtk1 and libmpeg1 and will fix them. e2fsprogs is broken in so many ways at the moment, it doesn't surprises me in the slightest that it also fails to run ldconfig. > If these packages are doing something wrong, then we have a problem. A bug, dear, the word is a bug. > So far I have not had any problems with them. Others have. RTFBA (#14212). BTW, even David, the ld.so author & maintainer, says the packaging manual is wrong; are you *so* confident you're right and everybody else is wrong that you're going to tell him he's wrong too? I give up. -- James -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
