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

Re: Why this?



On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 10:26:46PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:39:49AM +1300, Michael Beattie wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 07:58:29PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > > I think libmcal0 package should have a symlink libmcal.so.0->libmcal.so.0.6.
> > postinst runs ldconfig? ldconfig will create the link. check the package
> > manually via `dpkg -c <file.deb>`
> 
> Yes it seems to be there. But the file order is quite strange. Can that
> trigger some bugs in lintian?
> 
> ola@chrystal:~/build/mcal$ dpkg -c libmcal0_0.6-3_i386.deb 
> drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2000-11-27 21:58:08 ./
> drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2000-11-27 21:57:53 ./usr/
> drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2000-11-27 21:58:01 ./usr/lib/
> -rw-r--r-- root/root     38216 2000-11-27 21:58:01 ./usr/lib/libmcal.so.0.6
> drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2000-11-27 21:57:53 ./usr/share/
> drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2000-11-27 21:57:53 ./usr/share/doc/
> drwxr-xr-x root/root         0 2000-11-27 21:58:02 ./usr/share/doc/libmcal0/
> -rw-r--r-- root/root      1105 2000-11-26 14:43:40 ./usr/share/doc/libmcal0/copyright
> -rw-r--r-- root/root       231 1999-12-02 09:01:39 ./usr/share/doc/libmcal0/changelog.gz
> -rw-r--r-- root/root       377 2000-11-27 17:18:26 ./usr/share/doc/libmcal0/changelog.Debian.gz
> lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2000-11-27 21:57:32 ./usr/lib/libmcal.so -> libmcal.so.0.6
> lrwxrwxrwx root/root         0 2000-11-27 21:57:32 ./usr/lib/libmcal.so.0 -> libmcal.so.0.6

a) How did you get it to do that odd ordering!?

b) The .so symlink should be in the -dev package.

c) If this (however odd) ordering makes lintian barf, then lintian is
   broken.

-- 
 -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`  bcollins@debian.org  --  bcollins@openldap.org  --  bcollins@linux.com  '
 `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'



Reply to: