Bug#687022: found also with libm4ri
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 02:22:48AM +0200, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/01/13 16:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
>
> > This missing "+" in the regex has been fixed in Lintian 2.5.11
> > (experimental)[1]; though my question remains if we should really
> > re-order those regexes.
>
> I believe you are right. The idea is to find a link with either of the
> two formats:
> libwhatever.so -> libwhatever-X.so
> libwhatever.so -> libwhatever.so.X
>
> So the two regexes really should be mutually exclusive.
No. there is no requirement either technical or in policy, for a shared library
to follow any of theses convention and lintian must not assume so.
The only requirement is that for each libraries in the lib package there is at
least one matching symlink lib*.so pointing to it in the -dev package. The
exact name is a matter of C API that lintian cannot guess.
For example, it is perfectly valid to have
libwhatever.so -> libwhatever-X.so.Y.Z
or even
libfoo.so -> libbar-X.so.Z
(For example if libbar is an alternative implementation of libfoo, with the same API
but a different ABI. Makefile using gcc -lfoo should still work when libbar-dev is
installed).
This might explain the large number of false positive for a test which is
marked "certain". This is a regression from previous lintian version.
So I think using a regexp is misguided. It would be more reliable to follow the
symlink.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: