El Dimarts, 24 de març de 2015, a les 18:43:11, Russ Allbery va escriure: > Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda <leo@alaxarxa.net> writes: > > I'm packaging a non-free software (better not ask, it's a pain :-(). The > > question is that there are some executables that has a link to an old > > version of libraw1394-8. > > > > The funny thing is that I have tested to create a fictitious > > libraw1394.so.8 library making a symbolic link to the current > > libraw1394.so.11 and it works. When I created the package, > > dpkg-shlibdeps shows some messages with shouldn't be linked with > > libXXX.so.X (it uses none of its symbols). And one of them is > > libraw1394.so.8. > > > > So, as I have _only_ the binary, there's some way to drop a dependency > > of a library produced by the linker knowing that not use any of its > > symbols? > > You need to edit the ELF metadata for the binary and remove the NEEDED > entry for that shared library from the dynamic section. It looks like > patchelf can do that (in the patchelf package): > > $ patchelf --remove-needed libraw1394.so.8 /path/to/binary great!!!!!! thanks a lot. It was what i looking for. Leopold -- -- Linux User 152692 GPG: 05F4A7A949A2D9AA Catalonia ------------------------------------- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.