pd-zexy compilation improvements

[Roman Haefeli]

On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 19:24 -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On 27/08/10 18:18, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 12:11 +0200, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:
> >> On 08/24/2010 12:55 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:25:12AM +0200, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hmm. Do we then perhaps need to beware of this for helper tools like
> >>> lintian and dh_shlibdeps?
> >>>
> > 
> >> the other point is of course, whether tools like dh_shlibdeps and
> >> dh_strip work correctly.
> >> i can only say from experience, that they do.
> >> e.g. the binary Gem.pd_linux in the package "gem" is correctly stripped
> >> and the package depends on all packages that provide libraries the
> >> binary has been dynamically linked to.
> >> debian/rules does not extra care of shlibs.
> >> so it seems to "just work"
> > 
> > It seems it's not dh_strip who does the stripping. In the case of the
> > gem package it seems to happen already at compile time. After putting an
> > unstripped Gem.pd_linux in the temporary directory running dh_strip
> > won't touch it all. 
> 
> dh_strip doesn't strip anything it doesn't recognize (and it has no way
> of being forced into it). Add comments to bug #468333 to ask for support
> for this.

Thanks for confirming.

> In the meantime, you can call
> 
> strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note --strip-unneeded
>
> on each of the pd_linux files.

Ok.

> > Also it seems as if dh_shlibdeps looks only for .so-files. I haven't
> > figured out what trickery was used in the gem package to let it find
> > also .pd_linux-files. But having a plain .pd-linux file in the temporary
> > directory and running dh_shlibdeps doesn't produce anything useful.
> 
> You can pass additional arguments for dh_shlibdeps to process:
> 
> dh_shlibdeps -- $file1 $file2

Ah, so easy. Thanks for the hint.

Roman