Bug#711520: non-standard-apache2-module-package-name suggests strange name for libapache2-mod-php5
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.10.4
Severity: normal
Hi,
On libapache2-mod-php5_5.5.0~rc2+dfsg-2_amd64.deb I get:
W: libapache2-mod-php5: non-standard-apache2-module-package-name libapache2-mod-php5 != libapache2-libphp5
E: libapache2-mod-php5: apache2-module-does-not-ship-load-file libphp5
However, the suggested 'libapache2-libphp5' is not in the expected module
naming scheme at all.
Perhaps this happens because the shipped module is
./usr/lib/apache2/modules/libphp5.so and Lintian wrongly uses this to
construct an expected package name.
The second test seems to suffer from the same problem: we do ship the module
file, the test makes a wrong assumption about its name.
Cheers,
Thijs
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.0
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=nl_NL.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=nl_NL.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Versions of packages lintian depends on:
ii binutils 2.22-8
ii bzip2 1.0.6-4
ii diffstat 1.55-3
ii file 5.11-2
ii gettext 0.18.1.1-9
ii hardening-includes 2.2
ii intltool-debian 0.35.0+20060710.1
ii libapt-pkg-perl 0.1.26+b1
ii libarchive-zip-perl 1.30-6
ii libc-bin 2.13-38
ii libclass-accessor-perl 0.34-1
ii libclone-perl 0.31-1+b2
ii libdigest-sha-perl 5.71-2
ii libdpkg-perl 1.16.10
ii libemail-valid-perl 0.190-1
ii libipc-run-perl 0.92-1
ii libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-1
ii libtimedate-perl 1.2000-1
ii liburi-perl 1.60-1
ii locales 2.13-38
ii locales-all [locales] 2.13-38
ii man-db 2.6.2-1
ii patchutils 0.3.2-1.1
ii perl [libdigest-sha-perl] 5.14.2-21
lintian recommends no packages.
Versions of packages lintian suggests:
pn binutils-multiarch <none>
ii dpkg-dev 1.16.10
ii libhtml-parser-perl 3.69-2
pn libperlio-gzip-perl <none>
ii libtext-template-perl 1.45-2
ii lzma 9.22-2
ii man-db 2.6.2-1
ii xz-utils [lzma] 5.1.1alpha+20120614-2
-- no debconf information
Reply to: