Fwd: RFS: Scenic 0.6.0 - Telepresence software for live performances and installations

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:32:50PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 20:50:05 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 06:48:21PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>>On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 17:44:38 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:10:03AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>>>>On 31/08/10 08:41, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure how to properly package non-public shared 
>>>>>> libraries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please someone advice on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Install into /usr/lib/<package> and use RPATH on the executables 
>>>>> using it. If upstream uses autotools, I think just passing an 
>>>>> appropriate libdir will do the right thing.
>>>>
>>>> So http://wiki.debian.org/RpathIssue do not apply to all shared 
>>>> libs, only public ones?
>>>
>>> yes. and BTW, I find rpath very acceptable for purely private shared 
>>> libraries. And even during development and local deployment, rpath 
>>> is pretty convenient.
>>
>> I do not doubt that rpath has sane uses.  What I assumed obvious but 
>> can state explicitly now to avoid possible confusion, is that my 
>> concern here is tied to official Debian packaging - not e.g. "local 
>> deployment".
>>
>> Do you mean to say that *for* *Official* *Debian* *packaging* it is 
>> safe to ship shared libraries with rpath when not installed in 
>> ldconfig supported paths?
>
>Yes, I do.
>
>>
>>>> Currently the package generates an shlibs file and ldconfig 
>>>> snippets in postinst and postrm scripts.  Lintian then complains 
>>>> with these:
>>>>
>>>> W: scenic-utils: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
>>>> W: scenic-utils: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
>>>
>>> ldconfig only indexes /lib and /usr/lib (and a few corner cases, but 
>>> not /usr/lib/$package, this is the point of putting them there)
>>>
>>>> Is it wrong of dh_shlideps to include subdirectory below /usr/lib?
>>>
>>> yes, because you do want to include the private libraries's library 
>>> dependencies, don't you?
>>>
>>>> Is it sane to pass -X/usr/lib to dh_shlibdeps to suppress it?
>>>
>>>no, see above.
>>
>> Sorry - I am confused: why not suppress wrongly included private 
>> shared libraries from being registered by dh_shlibdeps?
>
>because you do want to consider their library dependencies
>
>(these shared libraries might have dependencies on other shared 
>libraries themselves!)

Ah, I get it now - yes, I was indeed confused: I meant dh_makeshlibs. 
:-)


  - Jonas

-- 
  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20100901/8be2c1bb/attachment.pgp>