Re: Opinions needed: reporting lintian overrides
On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:21:54AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > And yes, none of these are overrides to paper over lintian bugs... :)
> I dunno, I could make the argument that several of those are lintian bugs.
> O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source debian/config.cache
> If you put a config.cache file directly in the debian directory, you
> probably know what you're doing and lintian shouldn't be warning about
> it. That tag is designed to catch garbage mistakenly left around by
Exclusively for garbage left around by upstream? Surely if an autogenerated
config.cache manages to get into the .diff.gz, that's also a bug (in the
clean target) that should be fixed?
Though yes, debian/config.cache doesn't fit this use case anyway so lintian
could mechanically distinguish it, it just didn't seem worthwhile to me to
suggest hard-coding of such a rare exception.
> O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source packaging/Debian/debian-sarge/config.cache
> O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source packaging/Debian/debian-unstable/config.cache
> O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source packaging/Debian/debian-woody/config.cache
> are harder, though, and probably are stuck with being overrides at least
> for now.
> O: winbind binary: no-shlibs-control-file lib/libnss_winbind.so.2
> O: winbind binary: no-shlibs-control-file lib/libnss_wins.so.2
> O: winbind binary: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libnss-winbind2 libnss-wins2
> The last one is, to my mind, a clear bug in lintian. nsswitch modules
> shouldn't count as shared libraries for that tag; their SONAME is not
> something you need to embed in the package name to ease transitions.
> I thought we previously talked about shlibs for nsswitch modules in
> debian-devel and decided it was a good idea or at least wouldn't hurt, and
> libc6's *.shlibs file seems to back me up. So the first two might be
> minor bugs in the package. Although I have no idea why anyone would ever
> link directly against an nsswitch module and doing so is probably a bad
> idea, so maybe not having a shlibs file for one is something lintian
> should just swallow.
I don't agree that nss_winbind and nss_wins should have shlibs; I for one
don't intend to support anyone who's linking directly against the package,
which clearly lacks any sort of soname support in the package name.
> Either way, I don't think the first two should stay as lintian overrides.
> Either nsswitch modules should have shlibs entries, in which case samba
> should be modified (at a low priority, of course), or they shouldn't, in
> which case lintian should shut up about it.
But the only way to have lintian shut up about these would be by using some
heuristic to identify NSS modules. Well, I suppose /lib/libnss_*.so*
doesn't leave too much room for false negatives, after all...
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/