Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi again, > > Raphael Hertzog wrote: > >> That would be the wrong thing to check. We want to verify if it's a >> ELF object and if not then we skip it. And we should not skip it silently >> IMO as it was explicitly passed in a list of stuff to analyze. >> >> We already have the required Dpkg::Shlibs::Objdump::is_elf(). > > I went back to make this change but I decided I do not want it. It > would have brought on two regressions: > > 1. dpkg-shlibdeps currently supports non-ELF files as long as objdump > does. Of course all Debian architectures use ELF by default, but > there are users for dpkg outside of Debian (fink on Mac OS X, for > example). Can we assume that all users of dpkg-shlibdeps use ELF > objects exclusively? > > If we can, dpkg-shlibdeps could be simplified a lot by using readelf > instead of objdump. Thatâs something I would enjoy doing. > > 2. dpkg-shlibdeps currently complains if you pass it some random > garbage. Maybe it would be nice to have a separate accept-anything > mode so you can throw your entire debian/tmp at it. Thatâs not my > itch. > > I was looking to ignore interpreted files because they are the only > files other than object files that are supposed to be marked > executable and placed in /usr/bin or /usr/lib/package. This is better > than suppressing all errors because errors are useful. > > Meanwhile I do not want to break other peopleâs workflows. So I > would be very interested in hearing concrete problems this imposes, so > I can find a way to avoid breakage without unnecessary complication. > > Jonathan
What is wrong with excluding only scripts, those files begining with a shebang token? The test for this is easy and you still get errors for other files that objdump doesn't understand. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87633ky6ty....@frosties.localdomain