I maintain libcwd. For the latest release 0.99.37-2, linda reports the following problems: E: libcwd0; Object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libcwd.so.0.99.37 is not directly linked against libc. E: libcwd0; Object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libcwd_r.so.0.99.37 is not directly linked against libc. E: libcwd0; Binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libcwd.so.0.99.37 contains unneeded section .comment. E: libcwd0; Binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libcwd_r.so.0.99.37 contains unneeded section .comment. W: libcwd0; Shared binary object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libcwd.so.0.99.37 has no dependancy information. W: libcwd0; Shared binary object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libcwd_r.so.0.99.37 has no dependancy information. E: libcwd0; Binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libcwd.so.0.99.37 is not stripped. E: libcwd0; Binary /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib/libcwd_r.so.0.99.37 is not stripped. I am using dh_strip --keep-debug to keep these binaries purposely in place. Thus, I should probably override the last two errors. However, I am unsure about the first six lines. What do they mean? What am I doing wrong? Why does stripping fixes that? The libraries I install under /usr/lib are the same as the ones under /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib, but stripped. Why does that make such a difference? Please note that I will be on vacation starting *now*, so while I appreciate your replies on this issue, it will be a while until I get back to them. Cheers, -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <firstname.lastname@example.org> : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
Description: Digital signature