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

Re: bad lintian warning?



On 2012-05-21 17:38, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 21/05/12 10:02, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
>> [...]
>>> - - make a lintian override to suppress the warning, with a comment to
>>> explain I am using -release deliberately for resiprocate?
>> I'm not sure you want to keep the current names for the lib and the dev
>> symlink (but if you do, then probably you should override the warning).
>>
> 
> Now I get exactly the type of filenames described in the manual:
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Release-numbers.html#Release-numbers
> 
> e.g.
>     usr/lib/librutil.so -> usr/lib/librutil-1.8.so
> 
> The .0.0.0 suffixes are gone, but I still have the lintian warnings
> 
> As this scenario is valid from the libtool manual, it is acceptable to
> use the override for lintian?
> 
>> [...]

Hi,

As far as I can tell, you do not ship the symlink in the dev package (or
any other package for that matter)[1], so in that sense, Lintian is right.

That being said, Lintian does have a bug here,  which should be fixed in
commit 714b4ec[2].

~Niels

[1]

$ find -name librutil.so
./rutil/.libs/librutil.so
./debian/tmp/usr/lib/librutil.so

$ find -name librutil-1.8.so
./rutil/.libs/librutil-1.8.so
./debian/libresiprocate-1.8/usr/lib/librutil-1.8.so
./debian/tmp/usr/lib/librutil-1.8.so

[2]
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=lintian/lintian.git;a=commit;h=714b4ecdd59577792eac4006fc3b0b834bacb949


Reply to: