Re: Broken binaries again

[Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>]

On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger
<joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 12:03:19PM +0300, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
>> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger
>> <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:
>> > Let's try the easiest. "It doesn't fix anything"
>>
>> I still don't see any rational. If you don't demonstrate anything
>> except this I'll consider nobody objects.
>
> It's a perfectly clear rational. You don't fix the problem, just some of
> the symptoms.

Fixing the symptoms in our case allows to install those packages using
nih and pkgin
and make possible the regular checks of provides/requires consistency
for notifying
developers about found problems. If you have a patch for those packages
please show it. If you don't have anything except "objected",
my workaround can be considered as
good enough to be commited. It fixes the problem and doesn't create new ones.
Once again, garbage in pkg_summary(5) is not eccepted.
Also note that there are a lot of other packages with CHECK_SHLIBS_SUPPORTED=no.

> That alone is a very good reason to object and/or revert
> the patches.

Not in this case.