On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 02:22:48AM +0200, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote: > Hi, > > On 07/01/13 16:32, Niels Thykier wrote: > > > This missing "+" in the regex has been fixed in Lintian 2.5.11 > > (experimental)[1]; though my question remains if we should really > > re-order those regexes. > > I believe you are right. The idea is to find a link with either of the > two formats: > libwhatever.so -> libwhatever-X.so > libwhatever.so -> libwhatever.so.X > > So the two regexes really should be mutually exclusive.
No. there is no requirement either technical or in policy, for a shared library to follow any of theses convention and lintian must not assume so. The only requirement is that for each libraries in the lib package there is at least one matching symlink lib*.so pointing to it in the -dev package. The exact name is a matter of C API that lintian cannot guess. For example, it is perfectly valid to have libwhatever.so -> libwhatever-X.so.Y.Z or even libfoo.so -> libbar-X.so.Z (For example if libbar is an alternative implementation of libfoo, with the same API but a different ABI. Makefile using gcc -lfoo should still work when libbar-dev is installed). This might explain the large number of false positive for a test which is marked "certain". This is a regression from previous lintian version. So I think using a regexp is misguided. It would be more reliable to follow the symlink. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
