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

Re: bad lintian warning?



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 21/05/12 06:57, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 08:59:02PM +0000, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> 
>> My package: http://mentors.debian.net/package/resiprocate
>> 
>> The warning: 
>> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink.html
>>
>>
>> 
a) I notice the warning is appearing for the lib package and NOT the
>> -dev package itself
> Apparently that's intended: the tag is reported against the
> package containing the library.
> 
>> b) I notice the verbose output (on the mentors summary page)
>> shows an SONAME in a slightly different format:
>> 
>> usr/lib/librutil-1.8.so.0.0.0 usr/lib/librutil-1.8.so
>> 
>> Notice: librutil-1.8.so, while the -dev package creates a symlink
>> in the form librutil.so
> Yes, that's the problem. Lintian cuts out everything after ".so"
> when searching for the dev symlink while libtool with -release
> doesn't include the release number in the dev symlink (see also
> info libtool "7.4 Managing release information"). If you encode the
> library version in the library name, you are supposed to specify
> that version when linking, otherwise it's pointless. Note that the
> libtool example (libbfd-2.9.0.so) doesn't

Ok, so if people are supposed to specify the version when linking,
then I should do these two things:

- - not ship the librutil.so symlink at all in the -dev package?

- - make a lintian override to suppress the warning, with a comment to
explain I am using -release deliberately for resiprocate?

I am also responsible for the upstream autotools so I can change any
of these things if necessary upstream.  1.8 is the first release with
autotools/libtool, so if I've gone about this the wrong way, I'm happy
to revise it.

Previous discussions about this package concluded that -release is
desirable because each reSIProcate release (about once per year) has
both ABI and API changes that are not backwards compatible.

> have a soversion while your libs have -version-info 0:0:0 in
> addition to -release 1.8 and that's why the libs are named
> libfoo-1.8.so.0.0.0 instead of more common libfoo-1.8.so.

I realize -version-info is redundant here, but is it prohibited to set
- -version-info when using -release?  The libtool manual is not explicit
about whether I can mix them.
http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Release-numbers.html#Release-numbers

I thought setting -version-info would allow for minor changes, e.g.

- - a 1.8.1 release may have -version-info 0:1:0
- - a 1.8.5 release might have -version-info 1:0:0

but all 1.8.x releases would have SONAME librutil-1.8.so
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPugTMAAoJEGxlgOd711bEOSIP/1uGMAcVRJ4DSsDuSI8JXOl7
gpuRlDKTZJlkq6KfYugKQQupsMYQ3mBHU8FR6C88jYtoDh4f++ccs1oGltfjYrei
BbwQgSqohFWEpPVEUV4/vIGlsdSbjSqA8diQUhH8Y0txC5dJOjeFF8/Lrqe+vzGF
7Q6iNPRq96amqt9idEdYF4WKlGsvJs3mHWnXZ1ShBh7a5XRLjgkUBXd/4GCvC1uM
H8cwcxDiITqlYRsli0JeUhE6+941c2rgmlg4a80G0XHwQycH8mIaTb0yJVEVhFMP
GcOh0a7uHag/nb3BJaZYvx7ScFMuu23qbC0wglui39qR+MZR68HjYs35QkOcENgr
/wuTgg9S6dUqf0bjjefbCUSy0RUSh48z+QMVlCLZN16neBxePqM6tp1KN47d2+0Y
QoFrXudE/t2Cly5mqF53LIJnpkiSbzNUfYf9UaT4dk6IP00H9RwrmwOxIdBvLRtJ
HiwedgSpTLAKmcZSpNEERDMJR4TumKlWAdPmXkKYsw7KQKEQ9pJV3YwUfaz3SQ58
xdmj+icDIVGOqfS0Jsc3cA4WgDm6XH4uKEt8qSZviQA1mfQkZxXDDr5PQMexHqIT
2wV2QPYCbFnOmLNxxKubS7ipJGv5EStWFkrWI3f/gywyEc9kN+7sHTUaWpXWge6O
SlKRLf10L7JcBai5rjVe
=3kg4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: