On 8/18/2009 at 20:39, Cristian Rodríguez
wrote: On 18/08/09 14:33, Dominique Leuenberger wrote: the same file also depends on libvcdinfo.so.0, which in turn itself has a dependency on libiso9660.so.7. Is this already enough to consider not to list this dependency? At the moment I'm just puzzled... and I'm eager to hear explanations that are able to take away my fear of things like this breaking around us. read this document
Thanks for this link.. I'll for sure invest the time in reading (and hopefully understanding) it. i'm a bit scared by this. What would happen if libvcdinfo could be compiled without iso9660 support, but during my build time was build with the support? then my resulting lib has a dependency (by rpm) to libvcdinfo, the .so itself lists libiso9660 when checking with ldd, but the libvcdinfo I install (a later rebuild without the iso9660 support) was built without that support, it's going to break. Why would this now be the 'fault' of the application / original lib linking? I think this simply increases the risk of breaking when not using exactly the same library (incl. dependency chain) on the machine that was used when building the entire stack, no? Dominique (of course the example is now a bit fictive.. vcdinfo will probably always depend on iso9660.. except if for example a future, still api / abi compatible version has all the external dependency built in). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org