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

Re: SONAME vs illegal package name



On 17/01/2008, Tim Brown wrote:
> two libraries, libopenvas and libopenvas_hg and I was getting
> complaints that libopenvas didn't match the SONAME (for
> libopenvas_hg.so)

FWIW, it is thought about removing this lintian check (I had a quick
discussion with Russ Allbery in #459851[1]).

 1. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=27;bug=459851

> so I broke it down into one package per library (and a dev package for
> each) - libopenvas and libopenvas_hg. However I'm now getting
> complaints that the package name of libopenvas_hg is illegal.

It's not needed, especially if they are supposed to be updated
altogether (unlike if they were libfoo and libar, with no relation at
all between them). And indeed, you can't have any “_” in package name,
see the Debian Policy 5.6.7.

I'd suggest you let the lintian info/warning as it is for now, no need
to override it AFAICT.

Cheers,

-- 
Cyril Brulebois

Attachment: pgpepRS8E6NZl.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: