Package: binutils-dev Version: 2.26.1-1 Severity: important Package description states that "building Debian packages which depend on the shared libbfd is Not Allowed". OTOH:
* it is not possible to install bfd.h without the libbfd.so symlink * binutils provides a shlibs file, which is AFAIK only useful to build Debian packages that would link with the shared libbfd At the very least, it would seem that the .so links should be moved to a separate .deb (and lintian could even us this to generate an error when build-depending on it). Maybe binutils should also stop to provide the shlibs entry, by special exception to the policy if needed ? Note that I don't see in the package's changelog when that decision was taken. Entry for 2.9.1.0.15-2.1 back in 1998 says something about it: "Put the symlinks libbfd.so and libopcode.so into binutils-dev, so one can link to them.". Brz history says it was here already in 2.18. Maybe it would be good to add a note in a README.Debian to explain the rationale behind this "should not" ? -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'testing-debug'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (101, 'experimental'), (1, 'experimental-debug') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) Versions of packages binutils-dev depends on: ii binutils 2.26.1-1 binutils-dev recommends no packages. binutils-dev suggests no packages. -- no debconf information
