Bug#574572: lintian: false positives with shared libraries
On 20 March 2010 10:53, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> For that, if I were you I'd drop the -heimdal from any library package
> that doesn't actually conflict with an MIT Kerberos library package, which
> is the majority of the cases. I don't see any obvious reason why, say,
> libkafs0 or libhx509-5 need to have the -heimdal suffix. Of course, you
> only want to change package names when you have to anyway because of an
> SONAME change, so in the meantime you may want to add overrides.
Yes, have considered that myself. However, the SONAME doesn't change
very frequently on these libraries. In fact I think some of these
libraries the SONAME never have changed since I started maintaining
them.
It is possible the only SONAME change I have seen are related to
libkrb5 (need to check my changelog to be sure), the one you talk
about below.
Some libraries, e.g. libotp0 are very generic, but the argument could
be made that Heimdal shouldn't really ship with it anyway as (AFAIK)
it has nothing to do with Kerberos.
Not sure about libsl0 - I have associated this with libss0 in
e2fsprogs, however not really understood what they are about or why
two versions are required.
> I'm of two minds about the packages that actually conflict with MIT
> Kerberos. On one hand, since the SONAME is different, there's no inherent
> reason why you need the -heimdal. Calling the library package just
> libkrb5-26 would be fine technically. On the other hand, it looks like a
> much newer version of libkrb5-3 and hence could be confusing to humans, so
> there's an argument to be made for keeping it and the override forever.
> (And the situation with libkadm* libraries is a bit more complicated,
> although MIT Kerberos has now renamed their SONAMEs.)
Yes, this was major the reason I used the -heimdal prefix in the first place.
Yes, the soname is different now, but this may not always be the case.
--
Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>
Reply to: