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

Re: upgrade orfeotoolbox to 5.0

Hi Rashad,

Some help:

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Rashad M <mohammedrashadkm@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did lintian check on .changes file. Below is the output
> lintian -I otb_5.0.0-1_amd64.changes
> W: otb source: binaries-have-file-conflict libotb otb-bin
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libOTBCommandLine-5.0.so.1
> W: otb source: binaries-have-file-conflict libotb otb-bin
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libOTBCommandLineParser-5.0.so.1
> W: otb source: binaries-have-file-conflict libotb otb-bin-qt
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libOTBQtWidget-5.0.so.1
> W: otb source: binaries-have-file-conflict libotb-dev otb-bin
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libOTBCommandLine-5.0.so
> W: otb source: binaries-have-file-conflict libotb-dev otb-bin
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libOTBCommandLineParser-5.0.so
> W: otb source: binaries-have-file-conflict libotb-dev otb-bin-qt
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libOTBQtWidget-5.0.so

This is a bad error: you can not actually install otb-bin

dpkg: error processing archive ../otb-bin_5.0.0-1_amd64.deb (--install):
 trying to overwrite
'/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libOTBCommandLine-5.0.so.1', which is also
in package libotb 5.0.0-1
dpkg-deb: error: subprocess paste was killed by signal (Broken pipe)
Errors were encountered while processing:

Make sure that these binaries are only part of one package.

> W: otb source: changelog-should-mention-nmu
> W: otb source: source-nmu-has-incorrect-version-number 5.0.0-1
Add yourself to uploaders (d/control) and make sure the changelog is
signed by your name (set DEBEMAIL and DEBFULLNAME environment

> I: otb source: quilt-patch-missing-description spelling.patch
> W: otb source: syntax-error-in-dep5-copyright line 621: Cannot parse line
All text below "License:" should be intended one space with a dot on
empty lines.
In this case you can make life easy for yourself and refer te the full
version of the license at: /usr/share/common-licenses/LGPL-3

> I: otb-bin-common: spelling-error-in-binary
> I: otb-bin-common: spelling-error-in-binary
> usr/lib/otb/applications/otbapp_VectorDataReprojection.so allows to allows
> one to

I'm no fan of patching those, but you can do so if you like.Perhaps
better to report them upstream so the next release does not have these

> W: libotb: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libOTBApplicationEngine-5.0-1
> libOTBCarto-5.0-1 libOTBCommandLine-5.0-1 libOTBCommandLineParser-5.0-1
> libOTBCommon-5.0-1 libOTBCurlAdapters-5.0-1 libOTBEdge-5.0-1
> libOTBExtendedFilename-5.0-1 libOTBFuzzy-5.0-1 libOTBGdalAdapters-5.0-1
> libOTBIOBSQ-5.0-1 libOTBIOGDAL-5.0-1 libOTBIOKML-5.0-1 libOTBIOLUM-5.0-1
> libOTBIOMSTAR-5.0-1 libOTBIOMW-5.0-1 libOTBIOONERA-5.0-1 libOTBIORAD-5.0-1
> libOTBIOTileMap-5.0-1 libOTBImageBase-5.0-1 libOTBImageIO-5.0-1
> libOTBImageManipulation-5.0-1 libOTBMathParser-5.0-1 libOTBMetadata-5.0-1
> libOTBOSSIMAdapters-5.0-1 libOTBOpenThreadsAdapters-5.0-1
> libOTBPolarimetry-5.0-1 libOTBProjection-5.0-1 libOTBQtWidget-5.0-1
> libOTBRCC8-5.0-1 libOTBStreaming-5.0-1 libOTBSupervised-5.0-1
> libOTBTestKernel-5.0-1 libOTBTransform-5.0-1 libOTBVectorDataBase-5.0-1
> libOTBVectorDataIO-5.0-1 libOTBWavelet-5.0-1 libotbossimplugins-5.0-1
> libotbsiftfast-5.0-1

In principle, we could create a seperate package for every library.
Are there any third party software projects using only some of the
otb-libs? Otherwise I would keep them in one package especially since
updates will have a new version number in their soname.

> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libOTBIORAD-5.0.so.1
General remark: I wonder if it is useful to have an sonumber (the .1)
here if the release is already part of the soname.

> W: otb-bin: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/otbApplicationLauncherCommandLine

It is ok not to have a manfile here.
Not immediately related to packaging, but I do wonder if it would not
be better to have less binaries with different names. Compare it to
git. In the early days git-commit, ... were seperate binaries. Now you
run git commit.
Perhaps it would be better to have sth like that for otb as well:
otb ApplicationLauncher

> W: otb-bin: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libOTBCommandLineParser-5.0.so.1
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libOTBCommandLineParser-5.0.so

put the .so in your otb-lib-dev package.

> W: otb-bin: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libOTBCommandLine-5.0.so.1
> usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libOTBCommandLine-5.0.so
> I: otb-bin: no-symbols-control-file
Are there any programs which use the OTB libraries which are not part of OTB?
If there are none, especially since OTB has the release number in the
library name I don't see any value in adding symbols.
> Most of them are warnings. But dont know if they can be ignored considering
> the packaging policy.

The first warnings (file conflicts) must certainly be fixed otherwise
you can not install!
The unversioned.so files should also go into the -dev package.

Kind Regards,

Reply to: