Re: dpkg-shlibdeps question when creating Debian packages

2013-09-14 Thread Pedro DeKeratry
ah yes of course. Thank you. On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:07:17AM -0500, Pedro DeKeratry wrote: > > I received the following warnings when building with dpkg-buildpackage > > > dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol pthread_sigmask used by > > de

Re: dpkg-shlibdeps question when creating Debian packages

2013-09-14 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:07:17AM -0500, Pedro DeKeratry wrote: > I received the following warnings when building with dpkg-buildpackage > dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol pthread_sigmask used by > debian/libyrp/usr/lib/libyrp.so.2.0.0 found in none of the libraries > dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symb

dpkg-shlibdeps question when creating Debian packages

2013-09-14 Thread Pedro DeKeratry
I received the following warnings when building with dpkg-buildpackage dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol pthread_sigmask used by debian/libyrp/usr/lib/libyrp.so.2.0.0 found in none of the libraries dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: symbol pthread_join used by debian/libyrp/usr/lib/libyrp.so.2.0.0 found in no

Re: dpkg-shlibdeps question

2009-05-06 Thread Jiří Paleček
On Mon, 04 May 2009 19:07:18 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Fri, 01 May 2009, Jiří Paleček wrote: should almost never happen (except diversion) and the result when it happens is Should I read it as "the only legal situation where it returns multiple packages are diversions (the rest ar

Re: dpkg-shlibdeps question

2009-05-04 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Fri, 01 May 2009, Jiří Paleček wrote: >> should >> almost never happen (except diversion) and the result when it happens is > > Should I read it as "the only legal situation where it returns multiple > packages are diversions (the rest are errors)" or "the majority of > situations ... are di

Re: dpkg-shlibdeps question

2009-05-01 Thread Jiří Paleček
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:00:12 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Jiří Paleček wrote: Yes, but even then, libGL.so.1 (the one used for building a package) is only mentioned in one symbol file, namely the one from nvidia-glx, isn't it (let's put aside the package doesn't feature

Re: dpkg-shlibdeps question

2009-04-30 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Jiří Paleček wrote: > Yes, but even then, libGL.so.1 (the one used for building a package) is > only mentioned in one symbol file, namely the one from nvidia-glx, isn't > it (let's put aside the package doesn't feature a symbol file)? Why > should the libgl1-mesa-glx symbo

Re: dpkg-shlibdeps question

2009-04-30 Thread Jiří Paleček
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:40:12 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 29 avril 2009 à 18:51 +0200, Jiří Paleček a écrit : I've hacked a little into dpkg-shlibdeps and while doing this, I've found that the code makes allowance for a single library being mentioned in two different symbol

Re: dpkg-shlibdeps question

2009-04-29 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le mercredi 29 avril 2009 à 18:51 +0200, Jiří Paleček a écrit : > I've hacked a little into dpkg-shlibdeps and while doing this, I've found > that the code makes allowance for a single library being mentioned in two > different symbol files. I'd like to ask if (and when) can such situation >

dpkg-shlibdeps question

2009-04-29 Thread Jiří Paleček
Hello, I've hacked a little into dpkg-shlibdeps and while doing this, I've found that the code makes allowance for a single library being mentioned in two different symbol files. I'd like to ask if (and when) can such situation actually arise. Regards Jiri Palecek -- Using Opera's re