Marvin Renich <m...@renich.org> writes: > * Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> [250126 12:47]:
>> In theory it would be possible to do better in Lintian by scanning the >> symbol table to see if the libc dependency is really unneeded. But >> doing that sounds at least a little annoying. > Annoying to users of lintian or annoying to implement? How so? Annoying to implement because I think the implementation would have to know what symbols are provided by libc. > I thought of this solution while reading earlier in this thread, and it > seems like the "correct" solution to me. What is wrong with it? Nothing so far as I know. It's just work, and if people don't think that the problem is likely to occur, maybe the work isn't worth doing and the tag should just be deleted. > Clearly the current state is a bug in lintian, as so many packages > override this error. And from your description, the test has a > significant purpose that is still needed in the situations it was > intended to catch, even if they are few. Well, I'm not sure I would go that far. It *had* a significant purpose; we added it originally because it was catching a real problem. But it's entirely possible that this was an artifact of build systems at the time and the state of build systems in the archive has gotten much better. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
