On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 02:23:47PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:31:25PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 13:18:38 +0200, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> > guild would be because it's a dep of a dep of gdb-headless > >> guile > >> > >> libguile-2.0.so.22 is DT_NEEDED - as shown by ldd. > >> > >> Easy way would be to make gdb-headless a separate binary/build. > >> > >> Less easy way would be to dlopen() libguile from gdb and keep there some stub > >> with dlsym()ed pointers to functions. Or maybe provide weak symbols all > >> pointing to a function dlopen()ing libguile and so the weak symbols would get > >> overriden by real symbols from libguile. Or is solved by some project? > >> > >> Not sure if that guile dependency is such an issue. > > > > Can't we instead add fake Provides: this-package-is-not-critpath > > and ignore such packages from the script which makes them critpath? > > This seems like a better solution than doing ugly things like dlopen > > (and breaking automatic Requires, etc.) > > Or just not care if they're critpath? I'm not sure what the problem is. Additional constraints on updates. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
