I am preparing a new release of dictd. Lintian gives the
following warnings:
W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .note
W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .comment
W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .note
W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .comment
W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .note
W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .comment
Is this a known bug in lintian? I have run strings(1) on these
binaries, and have searched the source code for each, and neither
.note or .comment appears in any of them.
I have added symlinks from /usr/bin/dictunzip and
/usr/bin/dictzcat to /usr/bin/dictzip. The manpage for dictzip
includes the following:
NAME
dictzip, dictunzip, dictzcat - compress (or expand) files,
allowing random access
SYNOPSIS
dictzip [options] name
dictunzip [options] name
dictzcat name
The commands man dictunzip and man dictzcat properly display this
manpage, but lintian gives the following errors:
E: dictd: binary-without-manpage dictunzip
E: dictd: binary-without-manpage dictzcat
The gzip package has a similar situation with gunzip and zcat,
but it has created gunzip.1 and zcat.1 as hardlinks to gzip.1. Since
man can deal with a manpage with multiple names, this seems like an
unnecessary complication. Should I ask the lintian maintainer for an
override, or what should I do with this?
Bob
--
_
|_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Palm City, FL USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559
PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
