Re: RFS: poco and poco-doc (updated packages) [3rd try]
On Monday 09 June 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> writes:
> > shared library goes in /usr/lib and as expected lintian complains with:
> > libpocoxml5-dbg: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libPocoXMLd5
> > because of the missing 'd' before '5', at least, hence that leads us to a
> > package name as `libpocoxmld5-dbg', is that correct ?
>
> Oh, I get it, you're shipping *both* detached debugging symbols *and* a
> debug version of a library in /usr/lib in the same package.
>
> No, Lintian will want such a package be named libpocoxmld5 because it has
> no way of knowing that shared library is a debugging version of some other
> library. You will indeed need an override for this case.
Actually it would be smarter do ship only the detached debugging symbols I
believe. I can't think of a use case where the debugging version of the
shared library would be desperately needed or preferred, or I'm wrong ?
> > the goal was/is to generated -dbg packages that are using separate
> > (detached) debugging info and stored in /usr/lib/debug/,
>
> This is not all that you're doing, which is what was confusing me. You're
> also shipping a different shared library in the same package, which
> happens to be a debugging build of another shared library.
>
> If the package contained only detached debugging information, Lintian
> wouldn't be confused.
Nod. By the way I was looking at the lintian-1.24.0/checks/binaries: around
row 148; shouldn't expected_name as of name.so.[0-9] also be taken into
account ?
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: