Bug#814456: pam-ufpidentity/1.0-1 [ITP] -- UFP Identity PAM Module
Hi,
>* single changelog entry
ok, even if you can have just a single "intial release (closes: blah)" entry
>* upstream provides license
ok
* copyright uses same names for copyright and upstream owner
not in control file, but who cares? :)
>* priority: optional
>* std-version 3.9.7
>* uncomment vcs stuff and move it to https
wonderful, maybe without ";a=summary"
>* description updated, readme filled out
ok
>* sane build system (with help from bignose and helmut; thank you)
ok
>* Makefile creates necessary dirs, .dirs removed>* ?= used rather than =
>* soname added
wonderful
>* install as is, is required otherwise there is empty binary and no .so
>is added to package.
>* --ignore-missing-info required for shlibdeps, otherwise error:
we have a big problem here
auto_install is something like
"make install DESTDIR=debian/tmp"
while dh_install moves files in the correct package (with help from install files).
you have to put files in tmp, and having a single package, they will all be moved automatically to the right place.
in rules you are using MULTIARCH blah variable, but without exporting it it becomes a no-op
"DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH ?= $(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_HOST_MULTIARCH)"
then LIBDIR becomes something better.
/lib is wrong, /usr/lib/<triplet>
is the good place.
I removed the install file, removed the override_dh_auto_install the *bad* shlibdeps override
now it is building correctly
* the clean target doesn't remove the library in the root directory
"objdump debian/pam-ufpidentity/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/security/pam_ufpidentity.so -p |grep SONAME
SONAME pam_ufpidentity.so"
I don't see a proper SONAME here :)
test -d $(DESTDIR)$(LIBDIR)/security || mkdir -p $(DESTDIR)$(LIBDIR)/security
this is useless, mkdir -p already does the test.
>Regarding the code size I am hoping that can be overlooked as the .so is
>fully compliant PAM module. Its just that the heavy lifting is done by
>PAM and the dependent library (identity4c).
sure, I like when libraries do the hard job :)
new questions: how to test the binary? do you have examples of other libraries installed
in the same location doing similar purposes?
that place is not found automatically by the linker, and I don't know how to test it.
cheers,
G.
Reply to: