blt repackaged again, please advise on last lintian warnings
Hi, everybody. I'm back, now humbled by linitian's might. Instead
of putting my blt package revisions onto the mentors server, and
probably wasting your storage on another not-yet-done package, I
uploaded my new effort here:
http://pj.freefaculty.org/Debian/wheezy/amd64/blt-GK-3/
After I uploaded my try last week, Georges Khaznadar noticed I made
several mistakes and he did quite a bit of work to set it right. He
solved several of the long-standing package problems and several that
I caused. He toward the task of silencing all of the linitian
warnings.
I silenced quite a few warnings. What about the rest? These lintian
warnings affected the blt package as it stood before I tried to adopt
it. The blt includes a couple of important patches that solve
segmentation faults, and it fixes up tens of lintian warnings.
At the current time, these are the lintian warnings I'm left with (I'm
inserting numbers so we can discuss them).
01. W: blt source: changelog-should-mention-nmu
02. W: blt source: source-nmu-has-incorrect-version-number 2.4z-6
03. W: blt: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libBLT.2.4-8.4
libBLT.2.4-8.5 libBLTlite.2.4-8.4 libBLTlite.2.4-8.5
04. W: blt: hardening-no-relro usr/lib/libBLT.2.4.so.8.4
05. W: blt: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/lib/libBLT.2.4.so.8.4
06. W: blt: hardening-no-relro usr/lib/libBLT.2.4.so.8.5
07. W: blt: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/lib/libBLT.2.4.so.8.5
08. W: blt: hardening-no-relro usr/lib/libBLTlite.2.4.so.8.4
09. W: blt: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/lib/libBLTlite.2.4.so.8.4
10. W: blt: hardening-no-relro usr/lib/libBLTlite.2.4.so.8.5
11. W: blt: hardening-no-fortify-functions usr/lib/libBLTlite.2.4.so.8.5
12. W: blt: image-file-in-usr-lib usr/lib/blt2.4/treeview.xbm
13. W: blt: image-file-in-usr-lib usr/lib/blt2.4/treeview_m.xbm
14. W: blt: dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink
usr/lib/libBLTlite.2.4.so.8.4 usr/lib/libBLTlite.2.4.so
15. W: blt: dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink usr/lib/libBLT.2.4.so.8.4
usr/lib/libBLT.2.4.so
16. W: blt: dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink
usr/lib/libBLTlite.2.4.so.8.5 usr/lib/libBLTlite.2.4.so
17. W: blt: dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink usr/lib/libBLT.2.4.so.8.5
usr/lib/libBLT.2.4.so
1-2 I need you to tell me the protocol. I intend to adopt, Its not an
NMU. Is it? I solve warnings if I mark it as a Nonmaintainer Upload
and then change the release to a fractional 6.1.
By the way, last week on mentors I uploaded 2.4z-6. When I upload
again, should I use 2.4z-6 again?
3 is an objection against the package name, which is currently blt,
but perhaps it might be changed to libblt. But I don't want to. What a
hassle.
4-11 are compiler flags, but I don't know how to fiddle the rules file.
12-13 are unsolvable without make some pretty deep, unpredictable
changes in the source itself. There are scripts that use those two
image files as "busy cursor" icons, and the path is hard coded into
them.
14-17 seem peculiar to me. Aren't the necessary symlinks created by
ldconfig after the package files are installed? It shouldn't matter
if the links are in the package at all. Just my opinion.
Once again, thanks for the help to Georges and several of you who
emailed the list this weekend.
I understand that, when I eventually upload it to mentors, I'll get
instructions on requesting a sponsor via email to the bug number
664092@bugs.debian.org.
pj
ps. Before this, I had never read through a man page in source code.
How awful that format must be. What patience and care the author must
have. It makes the great man pages (rsync) seem even greater now. And
I now understand completely why there are so many sketchy man pages.
--
Paul E. Johnson
Professor, Political Science Assoc. Director
1541 Lilac Lane, Room 504 Center for Research Methods
University of Kansas University of Kansas
http://pj.freefaculty.org http://quant.ku.edu
Reply to: