On 17/01/2008, Tim Brown wrote: > two libraries, libopenvas and libopenvas_hg and I was getting > complaints that libopenvas didn't match the SONAME (for > libopenvas_hg.so)
FWIW, it is thought about removing this lintian check (I had a quick discussion with Russ Allbery in #459851[1]). 1. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=27;bug=459851 > so I broke it down into one package per library (and a dev package for > each) - libopenvas and libopenvas_hg. However I'm now getting > complaints that the package name of libopenvas_hg is illegal. It's not needed, especially if they are supposed to be updated altogether (unlike if they were libfoo and libar, with no relation at all between them). And indeed, you can't have any “_” in package name, see the Debian Policy 5.6.7. I'd suggest you let the lintian info/warning as it is for now, no need to override it AFAICT. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois
pgpzSXC4lWtxb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
