Re: possible mass-filing of bugs, continued, script refined: list of packages that apparently have disparity between package name and shared lib soname
On Wed, 22 May 2002 01:53:22 -0700
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net> wrote:
> [..]
>
> > And the list.
>
> [..]
> > Maintainer: Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> usr/lib/libSDL-1.2.so.0 libs/libsdl1.2debian-all,libs/libsdl1.2debian-oss,libs/libsdl1.2debian-esd,libs/libsdl1.2debian-arts 0
>
> This is a partially false positive, obviously. Why is it that I always
> end up adopting packages whose names/versions/whatever break policy and
> there's never a convenient way to fix it, hmm? Oi. I'm willing to fix
> this, with some caveats:
Actually, almost all packages listed shouldn't cause any problem at all until
the soname is upgraded.
The largest disadvantage of current situation is that automatic checking
for upgraded sonames is not easily possible.
It is not instantaneously problematic, but seeing that many new maintainers are following bad
examples, and many people don't understand why these are bad saying "there are so-and-so
examples in the archive", this would be nice to be fixed, or documented clearly,
or if ftpmaster could reject such packages with shared libraries which contain packages with
a different SONAME than the package name.
regards,
junichi
--
dancer@debian.org http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: