On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 10:09:31 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote: > Package: lintian > Version: 2.5.7 > Severity: normal > > I had trouble figuring out what lintian was trying to tell me here: > > ,---- > | W: libncursesw5: dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink > lib/i386-linux-gnu/libncursesw.so.5.9 lib/i386-linux-gnu/libncursesw.so > | W: lib64ncurses5: dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink lib64/libncurses.so.5.9 > lib64/libncurses.so > | W: lib64tinfo5: dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink lib64/libtinfo.so.5.9 > lib64/libtinfo.so > | W: libncurses5: dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink > lib/i386-linux-gnu/libncurses.so.5.9 lib/i386-linux-gnu/libncurses.so > | W: libtinfo5: dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink > lib/i386-linux-gnu/libtinfo.so.5.9 lib/i386-linux-gnu/libtinfo.so > `---- > > These warnings are somewhat misleading (why are they displayed for the > libraries rather than the -dev packages?), but ncurses does indeed not > ship those .so symlinks, rather the "missing" files are linker scripts > (and they are under usr/lib/ rather than under lib/).
This causes false-positives not just for linker scripts but for any symlink from /usr/lib → /lib (including multiach dirs), which should affect any package correctly installing *.so symlinks in /usr/lib and the actual shared libraries in /lib. So it appears the problem is that whenever it cannot find those files in the same directory it issues these incorrect warnings. I've seen this just now with libbsd. thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
