Bug#305575: marked as done (lintian: Check that SONAME and library package name match)
Your message dated Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:47:05 -0700
with message-id <E1E0JaL-0000mm-00@spohr.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#305575: fixed in lintian 1.23.11
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 20 Apr 2005 21:24:37 +0000
>From jeroen@wolffelaar.nl Wed Apr 20 14:24:36 2005
Return-path: <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl>
Received: from a-eskwadraat.nl [131.211.34.218]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DOMgW-00022A-00; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:24:36 -0700
Received: from jeroen by A-Eskwadraat.nl with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1DOMgV-0003Ym-00
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:24:35 +0200
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:24:35 +0200
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: [vorlon@debian.org: Re: libsilc package policy violations (bug #273871)]
Message-ID: <20050420212435.GK2785@A-Eskwadraat.nl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: lintian
severity: wishlist
Could be a lintian warning, incorrectly named package for this lib. Only
works with one lib in a package though, but that's the majority of
cases.
--Jeroen
----- Forwarded message from Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> -----
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 14:21:04 -0700
From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
To: Jeff Carr <jcarr@linuxmachines.com>
Cc: Robert McQueen <robot101@debian.org>, 273871@bugs.debian.org,
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: libsilc package policy violations (bug #273871)
Mail-Followup-To: Jeff Carr <jcarr@linuxmachines.com>,
Robert McQueen <robot101@debian.org>, 273871@bugs.debian.org,
debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 01:40:14PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> Robert McQueen wrote:
> >Tamas SZERB wrote:
> >>once upon a time, I closed this bug. then the submitter reopened it,
> >>so currently I don't give it a f*ck. Our opinion are different, so if
> >>you feel any ambition to get the both sides together, feel free to
> >>volunteer. :)
> >This package's violation of Debian policy on the packaging of shared
> >library packages is a fact, not an opinion. You have given no sound
> >reasons why this package is not correctly versioned, or given any
> >indication that you understand the issues at hand, such as how it is
> >expected to retain compatibility with existing packages when the API or
> >ABI undergoes changes (indeed, as it has just done upstream).
> Could you help explain to me more clearly what the problem is with this
> package against debian 8.1 guidelines? After reading the bug report at
> bugs.debian.org It's still not clear to me how the package should be
> changed. It seems quite subtle. I tried comparing it to some of the
> libgnome* packages to see if I could determine what was correct, but it
> still wasn't clear to me.
> Which one is a correct description of the problem?
> 1) the libsilc package should not contain /usr/lib/libsilc.so at all
> 2) the /usr/lib/libsilc* symlinks are not correct
> (wrong names or missing needed names)
> 3) /usr/lib/libsilcclient-1.0.so.2.1.0 is not the right name
> 4) the package itself is not the right name
4) is an approximation, but not actually a correct description (it's the
same incorrect approximation used by Policy itself). The problem is that
the package name is not being changed when the library soname changes, which
means that silc's shlibs are completely useless for preventing breakage of
packages depending on it.
This is not a theoretical; I recall that when this bug was being discussed
on IRC a week or so ago, there were cases of actual packages whose
dependencies were satisfied but required a previous silc soname and were
therefore completely broken.
There is no reason to require any *particular* package name for a library,
except that it should be unique; basing it on the soname is the best way to
ensure that it's unique in a future-proofed manner. The following command
gives the policy-recommended package name for any library:
$ objdump -p /tmp/silc/usr/lib/libsilc-1.0.so.2 \
| sed -n -e's/^[[:space:]]*SONAME[[:space:]]*//p' \
| sed -e's/\([0-9]\)\.so\./\1-/; s/\.so\.//'
libsilc-1.0-2
$
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 305575-close) by bugs.debian.org; 3 Aug 2005 13:55:35 +0000
>From katie@spohr.debian.org Wed Aug 03 06:55:35 2005
Return-path: <katie@spohr.debian.org>
Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1E0JaL-0000mm-00; Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:47:05 -0700
From: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
To: 305575-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $
Subject: Bug#305575: fixed in lintian 1.23.11
Message-Id: <E1E0JaL-0000mm-00@spohr.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@spohr.debian.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 06:47:05 -0700
Delivered-To: 305575-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 11
Source: lintian
Source-Version: 1.23.11
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
lintian, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
lintian_1.23.11.dsc
to pool/main/l/lintian/lintian_1.23.11.dsc
lintian_1.23.11.tar.gz
to pool/main/l/lintian/lintian_1.23.11.tar.gz
lintian_1.23.11_all.deb
to pool/main/l/lintian/lintian_1.23.11_all.deb
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 305575@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org> (supplier of updated lintian package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:50:10 +0300
Source: lintian
Binary: lintian
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.23.11
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Lintian Maintainers <lintian-maint@debian.org>
Changed-By: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
Description:
lintian - Debian package checker
Closes: 253498 262749 285152 285540 294409 294661 296233 305575 313118 318110 319212 319370
Changes:
lintian (1.23.11) unstable; urgency=low
.
* frontend/lintian:
+ [FL] Don't use dpkg --print-installation-architecture since
it is deprecated, use dpkg --print-architecture instead.
.
* debian/control:
+ [FL] Depend on libparse-debianchangelog-perl, require
>= 0.6 since prior versions have bugs regarding parse
error handling
.
* checks/binaries:
+ [FL] Check that the package name of a shared library matches
the SONAME as defined in the "Library Packaging guide"
(Closes: #305575, #313118)
* checks/changelog-file{,.desc}:
+ [FL] Use libparse-debianchangelog-perl to parse the changelog,
which detects a lot of syntax errors
+ [FL] Add a new tag debian-changelog-file-missing-or-wrong-name
which is issued if we found no Debian changelog but an upstream
changelog since the further checks will treat the
latter file as the Debian changelog and only issuing
debian-changelog-file-missing would be confusing then
(Closes: #285152)
+ [FL] Detect closes: statements with non-valid bugnumbers,
suggested by martin f. krafft (Closes: #294409)
* checks/common_data.pm:
+ [FL] Fix typo (hurd-386 -> hurd-i386) from last release
that lead to spurious warnings about unknown architectures
(Closes: #318110)
* checks/control-file:
+ [CW] Break control paragraphs at lines containing only whitespace, not
just on zero-length lines. (Closes: #319370)
* checks/fields:
+ [FL] Actually mention which architecture we're complaining about
* checks/manpages:
+ [FL] Report errors from man when parsing man pages. Based on
a patch by Kevin Ryde (Closes: #285540)
* checks/po-debconf:
+ [FL] Abort check if the package doesn't seem to use debconf to
avoid false positives in case maintainers use debian/po for
other Debian specific strings (Closes: #262749)
* checks/scripts:
+ [FL] increase search limit for exec hack by not counting comments
and empty lines (Closes: #294661)
+ [FL] detect more bashisms, suggested by Clint Adams and
martin f krafft (Closes: #253498, #296233 and addresses #253012
partly).
+ [FL] Adjust check for positional arguments after ". file" to detect
more shell control and piping commands that are all allowed.
Noted by Thomas Hood. (Closes: #319212)
.
* reporting/html_reports:
+ [FL] Fix counting of binary package names
+ [FL] Generate mostly valid HTML (id and name attributes still
aren't valid in all cases)
Files:
94c4d4780489e4327fb4838c3786f630 772 devel optional lintian_1.23.11.dsc
ce29fe57c0f530f765bdf625d70eb6bb 262185 devel optional lintian_1.23.11.tar.gz
dd650f0963fb8a88700bc7bf09c6824d 228812 devel optional lintian_1.23.11_all.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC8MeUQbn06FtxPfARApccAJ9vZ2LM9BMWGf/oWcs6kPbKstxDcgCfRqRh
VczRKVKtOFYwxESbkgQY3IM=
=INlc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: