Wookey wrote:
> +++ Jonathan Nieder [2013-01-24 13:58 -0800]:
>> Exactly. So one fix would be to split out a libbinutils package, with
>> a symbols file making clear that Debian packages are not supposed to
>> link to it.
>
> What does the symbols file contains that makes this clear? Just
> comments, or are there some suitable runes?
Here's what did the trick for me:
liblzma.so.5 liblzma5 #MINVER#
| liblzma_private_symbols
* Build-Depends-Package: liblzma-dev
(symver)XZ_5.0 5.1.1alpha+20110809
lzma_code@Base 4.999.9beta 1
With that, attempts to use the not-for-Debian symbol lzma_code@Base
produced
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: can't parse dependency liblzma_private_symbols
dpkg-shlibdeps: error: invalid dependency got generated: liblzma5 (>=
5.1.1alpha+20110809), libcomerr2 (>= 1.01), liblzma_private_symbols,
libgpg-error0 (>= 1.10), libbz2-1.0, libgcrypt11 (>= 1.4.5), libc6 (>= 2.3.2),
liblzo2-2, libuuid1 (>= 2.16), e2fslibs (>= 1.41.99), zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.4),
libblkid1 (>= 2.16)
at build time, which was nice.
But nobody except me liked it. :'( Just requiring a version far in
the future might be less scary. http://bugs.debian.org/630344 tracks
work on introducing a more proper syntax.
Thanks,
Jonathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
