[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: lintian: bad-link-to-undocumented-manpage



On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 05:43:39PM +0200, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
> Good morning,
> 
> I get this error from Lintian:
> 
> E: gbuffy: bad-link-to-undocumented-manpage usr/X11R6/man/man1/gbuffy.1x.gz
> N:
> N:   The symbolic link should reference `../man[237]/undocumented.[237].gz'
> N:   for manual pages in /usr/share/man or
> N:   `../../../man/man[237]/undocumented.[237].gz' for manual pages in
> N:   /usr/X11R6/man.
> N:
> 
> The link, however, looks like this:
> 
> lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 1999-08-02 12:39 usr/X11R6/man/man1/gbuffy.1x.gz -> ../../../man/man7/undocumented.7.gz

If I follow all the dots accordingly, this would link back to
"/usr/man/man7/undocumented.7.gz" but according to the FHS, man pages are
supposed to be in /usr/share/man, not /usr/man... not that the appropriate
package is installing /usr/share/man/man7/undocumented.7.gz yet... but
that's a problem with said package, lintian is just checking FHS.

> 
> ..which seems fine to me.  Is this a Lintian bug or do I need
> glasses?  (I didn't see any report about it in the BTS.)
> 
> -- 
> Joel Rosdahl <joel@debian.org>   (PGP and GPG keys available)
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 

-- 
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html        <gecko@benham.net>           <><  *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster          *
* <gecko@debian.org> <secretary@debian.org> <lintian-maint@debian.org>  *
* <webmaster@debian.org> <gecko@fortunet.com> <webmaster@spi-inc.org>   *
=========================================================================

Attachment: pgpEwyn52fMRc.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: