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

Re: [MoM] CamiTK packaging first part



Hi Emmanuel,

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 09:09:31AM +0100, Emmanuel Promayon wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> About the commit I did yesterday, I wanted to mention two remaining
> lintian's warning (I forgot them in my joy of having something
> operational):
> - camitk source: newer-standards-version 3.9.4 (current is 3.9.3)

Feel free to ignore (you need to use lintian from unstable which knows
the latest standard-version).  Ignoring this is perfectly fine.

> - libcamitk3 binary: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames (this one is
> overriden)

That's OK.
 
> 1) Concerning the first warning:
> I am using svn-pdebuild, which is an alias for svn-buildpackage with
> helpful options that Mathieu help me to create back in July :
> alias svn-pdebuild='svn-buildpackage --svn-dont-purge --svn-lintian
> --svn-override origDir=../tarballs --svn-ignore-new
> --svn-builder="pdebuild --buildresult `pwd`/../build-area"'
> 
> It is using pdebuild, which I created with "--distribution sid"
> (and which I keep updating, FYI the server itself runs Ubuntu 12.04)
> 
> In the chapter 6 of the maintainer guide [1], it seems there is a
> hook to have the latest lintian installed in pbuilder, but I did not
> manage to get it working. How can I know which version of lintian is
> used inside pbuilder?

Your analysis is correct.  However, it is the lintian of your local
installation that is finally called and thus you get the false warning.
As I said - it is fine to ignore this.

> 2) Concerning the second warning:
> According to [2], and if I understand it right, the problem comes
> from the fact the package is called "libcamitk3" but the soname of
> the distributed library is "libcamitkcore3"
> 
> What would you advised: change the name of the build lib upstream
> (possible for the next release which should come soon) or change the
> package name?
> Is the override fine for now?

I think so.  It would be even OK to not override the warning to remember
that there might be some reason to rethink the packaging.  I'd suggest
to leave the override as is for now.

Kind regards

        Andreas.

> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/build.en.html#pbuilder
> [2] http://lintian.debian.org/tags/package-name-doesnt-match-sonames.html 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de


Reply to: