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

Bug#482294: marked as done (lintian: Recognize sonames of the form lib[name]-[version].so)

Your message dated Wed, 21 May 2008 16:31:50 -0400
with message-id <1211401910.19240.118.camel@ozymandias.home.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#482294: lintian: Recognize sonames of the form lib[name]-[version].so
has caused the Debian Bug report #482294,
regarding lintian: Recognize sonames of the form lib[name]-[version].so
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
482294: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=482294
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: lintian
Severity: wishlist

Greetings,

The package-name-doesnt-match-sonames test has a false positive when the
soname is of the form produced by the libtool "-release" flag [1].  For
example the babel lintian report includes:

W: libparsifal1.0.0 binary: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libparsifal-1.0.0

 [1] http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html#Release-numbers

How much more reflective of the soname could the package name be?  Also,
dh_makeshlibs gets the version right, e.g. the one-line
libparsifal1.0.0.shlibs file is:

libparsifal 1.0.0 libparsifal1.0.0

So one would expect lintian to realize that the lib version number
matches the end of the package name.

Thanks,
-Adam
-- 
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 10:56 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > Package: lintian
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > The package-name-doesnt-match-sonames test has a false positive when the
> > soname is of the form produced by the libtool "-release" flag [1].  For
> > example the babel lintian report includes:
> >
> > W: libparsifal1.0.0 binary: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libparsifal-1.0.0
> >
> >  [1] http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual.html#Release-numbers
> >
> > How much more reflective of the soname could the package name be?
> 
> It could include the dash.  :)  Lintian is telling you, in the message,
> the package name that it's expecting.

Aha!  I didn't realize that was the meaning of the lintian message.
That's easy enough for me to change.

> This may well be too picky in this particular case.  I don't have any
> strong opinions about that, although I will note that a package name of
> libparsifal1.0.0 corresponds to an SONAME of libparsifal.so.1.0.0, not an
> SONAME of libparsifal-1.0.0.so, in the Debian library packaging
> documentation.  If you include the dash, it disambiguates between those
> two cases.

I understand now.  Thanks for clearing that up!

-Adam
-- 
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B  C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6

Engineering consulting with open source tools
http://www.opennovation.com/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


--- End Message ---
Reply to: