Hi, On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 14:26 +0300, Andrew O. Shadoura wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:07:12 +0200 > "SZERB, Tamas" <toma@rulez.org> wrote: > > > >> * Andrew O. Shadoura <bugzilla@tut.by>, 2011-06-30, 00:30: > > >> >> 5. Lintian issues (lintian -iI --pedantic): > > >> >> W: tnat64: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libtnat64-0.1 > > >> >> W: tnat64: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink > > >> >> usr/lib/libtnat64.so.0.1 usr/lib/libtnat64.so > > >> >> I: tnat64: no-symbols-control-file usr/lib/libtnat64.so.0.1 > > > >> >Isn't really relevant, as this is a LD_PRELOAD-able library. > > > >> Then there's no reason to install the library into /usr/lib. > > >> Install it to a private directory instead. And you don't need any > > >> symlinks either. > > > > Agree. In that case this is also relevant to tsocks package (Cc'ed). > > > Could you provide the bug #number to see the whole? > > There isn't a bug filed, but as my tnat64 is actually a fork of tsocks > (he-he), this bug must present in tsocks too (as it > has /usr/lib/tsocks.so). this discussion about moving a shared lib into private namespace is somewhat puzzling me. If the code it provides is only used internally - why not link it in statically and don't ship it? And if it can provide a useful ABI for others - why not make it a real shared lib and ship it as such from the same source? -- Best regards, Kilian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part