[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: pkg_summary(5), PROVIDES and REQUIRES
>> How about the following patch?
>> A few notes about it:
>> 1) \.[0-9]+$ and \.[0-9\.]+$ regexp patterns have been replaced
>> with (\.[0-9]+)?$ for obvious reasons
>> 2) libxxx.so symlinks are explicitely removed from PROVIDES
> I don't understand this. Isn't it possible for something to require a
> .so file that could be a symlink?
Example? Usually ldd says either libfoobar.so and this a real file (not
a symlink), or says lddfoobar.so.<num> and we don't need a symlink
libfoobar.so in this case.
> Or is there an existing check for
> that elsewhere? Nevertheless, I can't find any example of this on my
> own system, so probably okay.
With my patch PROVIDES and REQUIRES are generated in the following way.
1) PROVIDES includes all .so and .so.[0-9]+ shared library files
excluding .so files which are symbolic links (Usually .so symlink
points to appropriate .so.<number> which is already in PROVIDES => no
2) REQUIRES includes shared libraries required by executable or shared
libraries provided by the package, excluding shared libraries
included in the package's PLIST. For examples, if both bin/bzip2
(that requires lib/libbz2.so) and lib/libbz2.so are provided by the
package REQUIRES will not include lib/libbz2.so.
Best regards, Aleksey Cheusov.
Main Index |
Thread Index |