Bug#687022: found also with libm4ri
On 2013-09-21 00:46, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 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.
>
Hi,
> 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).
>
Thanks for clarifying this point, seems like Lintian is wrong here. To
be honest, I am actually quite happy someone with knowledge in this area
steps up and explains how it is intended/required to work. This is one
of the many code snippets that have been carried on in the Lintian code
base with no obvious reference to why it works that particular way.
> 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,
>
The git history (which takes us back to 2004) shows that we have been
using the regex-approach for the past 9 years[1]. snapshot.d.o go as
far back as 0.9.3 (27 Oct 1998) and that version has the same regex as
the code had in 2004. So this "regression" must be at least 15 years
old now. :)
The tag itself is listed in the mail from 25 Jan 1998, where Christian
Schwarz announced Lintian[2].
"""
The shared library check script detects the following policy violations:
# [...]
#
# (a foo-dev package should contain a symlink foo.so -> foo.so.0)
# E: dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink
# (==> check does not work correctly yet, [...])
"""
If you happen to still have that old a version of Lintian I'd would
seriously like a copy of it. Heck, I will even buy you a
beer/$beverage_of_choice if you have that copy and the code indeed did
(or rather, tried to do) the "right thing" back then. But honestly, I
think there is no regression here; just a regular bug since the
conception of Lintian.
~Niels
[1]
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=lintian/lintian.git;a=blob;f=checks/shared-libs;h=c2f35a06712ef4b84101699cdfd0d08baaa1e2eb;hb=020888bca1e21cf8e98934fea04d9352244c97e9#l185
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/01/msg01503.html
Reply to: