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

Bug#968071: lintian: Differentiate between "ar" static libraries and "ar" archives



Hi Felix,

First of all, apologies for accidentally replying to the wrong email before. Sending to the bug email now.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 2:26 AM Olek Wojnar <olek@debian.org> wrote:
Hi Felix,

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 7:35 AM Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com> wrote:
Hi Olek,

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:03 PM Olek Wojnar <olek@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Lintian currently emits an arch-dependent-file-in-usr-share

I cannot find bazel in the archive. How can I trigger the tag, please?

I'm getting ready to submit the bootstrap variant to NEW. The latest in-work branch is on Salsa [1] and I have a binary (with a dependency that's still stuck in NEW) on my p.d.o page. [2] Both binary packages have a signed .changes with them. Please let me know if there's anything else you need!
 
> lintian assumes that this is a static library.

That is probably right. The relevant line is:

    https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/checks/binaries.pm#L345

Strange, that line seems like it should identify it correctly. But I can open the files in question using emgrampa so they are clearly archives and I get this when I run file:
$ file a.ar
a.ar: current ar archive
 
> https://salsa.debian.org/bazel-team/bazel-bootstrap/-/tree/olek-temp4/tools/build_defs/pkg/testdata

The link shows source files but the tag is about installed files.
Which *.deb are you using, please?

Please use the one on p.d.o [2] for now.
 
> Please consider using the `file` command or something similar to distinguish
> between the two types of "ar" files.

I am not sure it is possible to distinguish them that way, but am
happy to look at it once I can reproduce. The ar files in your source
tree also come up as 'current ar archive'.

Thanks for taking a look at this! Again, please let me know if there's anything else that I can send you to make the troubleshooting easier!

Note that this issue also comes up for the "arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object" tag. I ended up splitting my packaging since the overwhelming majority of the size was arch-independent and this tag came up for the same files.


Reply to: