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

Bug#423229: lintian: false positive for manpage-for-non-x11-binary-in-wrong-directory



Package: lintian
Version: 1.23.30
Tags: patch

Hi,

Lintian has a false positive for
manpage-for-non-x11-binary-in-wrong-directory on my package "paw" as a
result of a binary having "X11" in its name:

> benjo2 (sid)[28]:~/Debian/PAW% lintian -i paw_2.14.04.dfsg.2-1_i386.changes 
> E: paw: manpage-for-non-x11-binary-in-wrong-directory usr/bin/pawX11 usr/share/man/man1/pawX11.1.gz
> N:
> N:   Manual pages for binaries that are not located in /usr/X11R6/bin
> N:   should not be installed below /usr/X11R6/man, but below
> N:   /usr/share/man.
> N:   
> N:   Note that moving a binary into /usr/X11R6/bin is almost never the
> N:   proper solution for this problem; move the manual page instead.
> N:

I'm attaching a trivial patch against lintian-1.23.30/checks/manpages
which may or may not be right, since my Perl is not so good.  The patch
does prevent the false positive, and Lintian was still able to pick up
on a manpage that I deliberately installed to usr/X11R6/man/man1 in a
test .deb.

Instead of applying my patch, however, it actually might make more sense
to remove this check completely.  Since installing to /usr/X11R6 is now
a no-no anyway, this check seems to be superseded by
"package-installs-file-to-usr-x11r6".

best regards,

-- 
Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@princeton.edu>   Physics Department
WWW: http://www.princeton.edu/~kmccarty/    Princeton University
GPG: public key ID 4F83C751                 Princeton, NJ 08544
--- manpages.orig	2007-04-26 22:44:46.000000000 -0400
+++ manpages	2007-05-10 14:02:08.000000000 -0400
@@ -338,7 +338,8 @@
 	} else {
 	    for my $manp_info (@{$manpage{$f}}) {
 		# no. manpage in X11?
-		if ($manp_info->{file} =~ m/X11/) {
+		if ($manp_info->{file} =~ m/\/X11\// || 
+		    $manp_info->{file} =~ m/\/X11R6\//) {
 		    tag "manpage-for-non-x11-binary-in-wrong-directory", "$binary{$f} $manp_info->{file}";
 		} else {
 		    # ok.

Reply to: