-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 21/05/12 06:57, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 08:59:02PM +0000, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> >> My package: http://mentors.debian.net/package/resiprocate >> >> The warning: >> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink.html >> >> >> a) I notice the warning is appearing for the lib package and NOT the >> -dev package itself > Apparently that's intended: the tag is reported against the > package containing the library. > >> b) I notice the verbose output (on the mentors summary page) >> shows an SONAME in a slightly different format: >> >> usr/lib/librutil-1.8.so.0.0.0 usr/lib/librutil-1.8.so >> >> Notice: librutil-1.8.so, while the -dev package creates a symlink >> in the form librutil.so > Yes, that's the problem. Lintian cuts out everything after ".so" > when searching for the dev symlink while libtool with -release > doesn't include the release number in the dev symlink (see also > info libtool "7.4 Managing release information"). If you encode the > library version in the library name, you are supposed to specify > that version when linking, otherwise it's pointless. Note that the > libtool example (libbfd-2.9.0.so) doesn't
Ok, so if people are supposed to specify the version when linking, then I should do these two things: - - not ship the librutil.so symlink at all in the -dev package? - - make a lintian override to suppress the warning, with a comment to explain I am using -release deliberately for resiprocate? I am also responsible for the upstream autotools so I can change any of these things if necessary upstream. 1.8 is the first release with autotools/libtool, so if I've gone about this the wrong way, I'm happy to revise it. Previous discussions about this package concluded that -release is desirable because each reSIProcate release (about once per year) has both ABI and API changes that are not backwards compatible. > have a soversion while your libs have -version-info 0:0:0 in > addition to -release 1.8 and that's why the libs are named > libfoo-1.8.so.0.0.0 instead of more common libfoo-1.8.so. I realize -version-info is redundant here, but is it prohibited to set - -version-info when using -release? The libtool manual is not explicit about whether I can mix them. http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Release-numbers.html#Release-numbers I thought setting -version-info would allow for minor changes, e.g. - - a 1.8.1 release may have -version-info 0:1:0 - - a 1.8.5 release might have -version-info 1:0:0 but all 1.8.x releases would have SONAME librutil-1.8.so -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPugTMAAoJEGxlgOd711bEOSIP/1uGMAcVRJ4DSsDuSI8JXOl7 gpuRlDKTZJlkq6KfYugKQQupsMYQ3mBHU8FR6C88jYtoDh4f++ccs1oGltfjYrei BbwQgSqohFWEpPVEUV4/vIGlsdSbjSqA8diQUhH8Y0txC5dJOjeFF8/Lrqe+vzGF 7Q6iNPRq96amqt9idEdYF4WKlGsvJs3mHWnXZ1ShBh7a5XRLjgkUBXd/4GCvC1uM H8cwcxDiITqlYRsli0JeUhE6+941c2rgmlg4a80G0XHwQycH8mIaTb0yJVEVhFMP GcOh0a7uHag/nb3BJaZYvx7ScFMuu23qbC0wglui39qR+MZR68HjYs35QkOcENgr /wuTgg9S6dUqf0bjjefbCUSy0RUSh48z+QMVlCLZN16neBxePqM6tp1KN47d2+0Y QoFrXudE/t2Cly5mqF53LIJnpkiSbzNUfYf9UaT4dk6IP00H9RwrmwOxIdBvLRtJ HiwedgSpTLAKmcZSpNEERDMJR4TumKlWAdPmXkKYsw7KQKEQ9pJV3YwUfaz3SQ58 xdmj+icDIVGOqfS0Jsc3cA4WgDm6XH4uKEt8qSZviQA1mfQkZxXDDr5PQMexHqIT 2wV2QPYCbFnOmLNxxKubS7ipJGv5EStWFkrWI3f/gywyEc9kN+7sHTUaWpXWge6O SlKRLf10L7JcBai5rjVe =3kg4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fba04cd.8010...@pocock.com.au
