Re: Problem with a debian package (lib or not lib ?)
Hi,
On Sat, 25 Jan 2003, Fabien Ventro wrote:
> I have a few problem with one debian package. It isn't currently in
> debian, but the author a the package provied a debian directory. The
> package is kbiff (kbiff.sf.net) I managed to build the package, but I
> have the following errors :
> Now running lintian...
> W: kbiff source: dh-make-template-in-source debian/prerm.ex
> W: kbiff source: dh-make-template-in-source debian/preinst.ex
> W: kbiff source: dh-make-template-in-source debian/postrm.ex
> W: kbiff source: dh-make-template-in-source debian/postinst.ex
> W: kbiff source: dh-make-template-in-source debian/menu.ex
no need for dh-make template in Debianized source
> W: kbiff source: out-of-date-standards-version 3.5.2
Compare the templates in /usr/share/debhelper/dh_make and those which
came with kbiff... bring them up to the current standard,
re-Debianize, pass the new templates upstream.
> E: kbiff source: debian-files-list-in-source
no need for files list in Debianized source
> E: kbiff: no-shlibs-control-file usr/lib/kbiff.so
> E: kbiff: postinst-must-call-ldconfig usr/lib/kbiff.so
> W: kbiff: postrm-should-call-ldconfig usr/lib/kbiff.so
> E: kbiff: unparsable-menu-item /usr/lib/menu/kbiff:6
this should get fixed when you bring the Debianization up to date
> E: kbiff: package-has-a-duplicate-relation xlibs (>> 4.1.0), xlibs (>>
> 4.2.0) Finished running lintian.
hmmm...
> For the .ex file, I could remove them, but for the lib, I don't
> understand ! This package will not provide a library, only an app !For
> xlibs, I don't understand, too !
~$ locate kbiff.so
/usr/lib/kbiff.so
> Could someone help me understanding this ?
...it looks like you need to go through the Debian bits in the source,
there may be some hard coded stuff that is in conflict with current
reality. e.g., does "xlibs (>> 4.1.0)" appear in the source, or is it
auto generated when you build based on what libs you have installed,
or is both happening.
> Thank you in advance .
HTH
- Bruce
Reply to: