Jay Berkenbilt <q...@debian.org> writes: > lintian is reporting lib-recommends-documentation on the libvips-tools > package. This is a false positive because libvips-tools is not a > library package. Perhaps it should be called something different, like > vips-tools, but I think the real problem is that lintian is assuming a > library package based on the package name rather than the package > contents. The libvips-tools package contains no .so.* files. In fact, > it doesn't even contain any lib directories.
Lintian has no access to information about the contents at the point at which it's issuing that tag, I'm afraid. The tag is against the source package, so there may not even be any binary package for it to be able to look at. For the time being at least, I suspect we should special-case -tools and maybe a few other similar cases (I think Policy recommends some package names for things like this). -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
