Hi, On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Modestas Vainius wrote: > > Why do you believe that? I don't know of many cases where the name of an > > ELF binary format got changed... but I haven't studied the question. That > > said we have no official mapping between ELF format and Debian > > architecture and the mapping might not always be 1 to 1. So maybe changing > > the meaning of the arch tag is not the best solution. > > It's an additional complexity. Thinking more about it, does dpkg-shlibdeps > compare ELF architectures when looking for the library the binary links to? > ldconfig does differentiate on the arch level as well, not just soname.
Yes, dpkg-shlibdeps respect the ELF format. It will look for a library with the same ELF format than the binary analyzed. > > I don't see any solution that does not involve duplicating the list of > > symbols in multiple files. > > So there is a (very easy) solution for that. I added -a option to dpkg- > gensymbols 1.15.6. I must admit that it was for different purpose but it > should work very nicely in this context. So: > > $ dpkg-gensymbols -plib32std++6 -ai386 ... > > or > > $ dh_makeshlibs -plib32std++6 -- -ai386 > > Biarch is a hack, but maintainer is in control of this hack and probably > fiddle with a couple of similar options. So I don't think that using -a > option > this way is a big problem, is it? Indeed, it looks like a good solution as well. Matthias, are you satisfied with this suggestion? If yes, please close this bug report. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer ◈ [Flattr=20693] Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-bugs-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
