Saturday 23 March 2024

Re: help needed -- fixing hard-coded dependencies on shared library packages

Thanks for pointing developers at this.

Note that this does not conflict with prior advice that we should
aggressively remove armhf binary packages from the release pocket in order
to let the transition through: while dependencies on the old package name
will only make the packages *uninstallable* on armhf, having packages on
other archs with dependencies on the old package name is also not good for
the release because it makes apt's job harder in trying to calculate an
upgrade to noble. Since it's about the same amount of effort to just fix
these as it is to remove them on armhf, we should just fix them.

On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 07:05:19PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Hi,
> according to
> we still have a lot of hard-coded dependencies on shared library packages.
> These fixes just take some minutes, not only replacing a shared library name
> with another hard-coded name. So when you're bored, can't sleep, or
> whatever, please fix some packages!
> To check:
> - For architecture dependent package, check removing the
> libfoo1 dependency, test build with nocheck, and look
> if the dependency is still there. In this case, just
> drop the hard-coded dependency.
> - for other packages, please follow the schema at
> - Derive the library name from the -dev package,
> add a b-d on the -dev package if necessary,
> replace the hard coded library in the control file
> with a macro, and pass that macro in dh_gencontrol.
> Please join #ubuntu-devel and mention which package you are working on.
> Also check the changes mailing list, if the package is already fixed.
> scrolling to the end
> Please don't forget to forward patches to the Debian bug tracker.
> Thanks, Matthias
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:

Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer