| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 10:40, Joel Osburn wrote: |
| 2 |
> Thanks. I wasn't really confused by the version number differences, but |
| 3 |
> maybe someone else was. I was trying to point out that revdep-rebuild |
| 4 |
> claims to check for dynamically linked binaries, and the packages that |
| 5 |
> own them don't actually need to be recompiled to use the newer (minor |
| 6 |
> version) package. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
They DO need to be recompiled if you have a newer version of the dynamic |
| 9 |
lib that breaks binary compatibility but maintains API compatibility (as |
| 10 |
we do here, or with libpng as another example). That is why the -soname |
| 11 |
was changed. Usually, packages have the -soname match lib<lib |
| 12 |
name>.so.<major version> and changing minor/tiny versions won't break |
| 13 |
binary incompatibility, but openssl likes to use the tiny version to |
| 14 |
denote binary compatibility. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> My question remains: how does one tell what packages are statically |
| 17 |
> compiled against a given library. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You can't. That's why you should't use static libraries. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That's not entirely true... you could do a 'readelf -s <exec> | grep |
| 22 |
<symbol>' on executables to see if that symbol is present in the file... |
Archives