Lintian warnings with the coq package
Hi,
I'm still not satisfied with the coq package I prepared : lintian finds
too much to complain about.
PROBLEM I: shared-library-lacks-prerequisites lintian warnings
(many of them)
For example:
W: libcoq-ocaml: shared-library-lacks-prerequisites usr/lib/coq-
core/clib/clib.cmxs
My libcoq-ocaml has /usr/lib/coq-core/clib/clib.cma and /usr/lib/coq-
core/clib/clib.cmxs ; my libcoq-ocaml-dev has /usr/lib/coq-
core/clib/clib.a and /usr/lib/coq-core/clib/clib.cmxa.
I did things like this because the Debian Ocaml Packaging Policy says
"If the library provides native plugins (*.cmxs) or is meant to be
dynamically loaded using the Dynlink library, those plugins, relevant
*.cmo or *.cma files, and the META file referencing them should also be
provided by this runtime package.", so since there's no cmo file (which
the previous package had), I moved the cma files in.
Do I miss something? The fact that the error message is not OCaml-
specific makes me wonder if lintian might just makes bogus claims.
PROBLEM II: ocaml-dangling-cmi lintian warnings
(many of them)
For example:
I: libcoq-ocaml-dev: ocaml-dangling-cmi usr/lib/coq-
core/gramlib/gramlib__Gramext.cmi
In fact, all of the cases giving me issues have the form foo__bar.cmi,
so I suspect there's something special about them: for all other .cmi,
I have corresponding files and no warning.
Is there something specific with foo__bar.cmi files which lintian
doesn't know about?
PROBLEM III: unstripped-static-library lintian warnings
(many of them)
For example:
I: libcoq-ocaml-dev: unstripped-static-library usr/lib/coq-
core/gramlib/gramlib.a
There I'm wondering if it's not detecting .a files, treating them like
C-language .a files and hence complaining for nothing.
PROBLEM IV: coq's lib is not in /usr/lib/ocaml
That was the case with the previous packaging (/usr/lib/coq)), it's
still the case (/usr/lib/coq-core), and it's incoherent with the
policy:
libcoq-ocaml-dev: ocaml-dev-file-not-in-usr-lib-ocaml 998 files in
usr/lib
Of course, there are other issues, but the above ones bother me.
Cheers,
J.Puydt
Reply to: