Hi Andreas, On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:35 PM Andreas Ronnquist <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:10:07 -0800 > Felix Lechner <[email protected]> wrote: > > If I use an override like this: > > > scite source: source-is-missing scintilla/bin/lexilla.so > > I get two Lintian errors: > > E: scite source: source-is-missing scintilla/bin/lexilla.so > E: scite: malformed-override Override of source-is-missing for package > type source (expecting binary) at line 6
The Lintian tag output takes some time to get used to. The first error relates to a 'scite*.dsc' while the second relates to a 'scite_*.deb'. It is a coincidence---confusing here---that both have the same name. Lintian overrides for source packages live in ./debian/source/lintian-overrides. The format with 'source' is not permitted for ./debian/scite.lintian-overrides, which is for the installation package (deb). > - but if I instead use it without the "source" field like this: > > > scite: source-is-missing scintilla/bin/lexilla.so My recommendation is to strip the package indicator altogether, i.e. just 'source-is-missing scintilla/bin/lexilla.so'. The file location will provide the other information. > I also get two lintian items (different ones, of course): > > E: scite source: source-is-missing scintilla/bin/lexilla.so > I: scite: unused-override source-is-missing scintilla/bin/lexilla.so Please try moving the override file to the ./debian/source/lintian-overrides. > Is it as simple as the only way to solve this is repackaging upstream > removing the unused .so? As I said earlier, the source for lexilla.so > _is_ there in the upstream source. Repacking is a good long-term solution. If upstream is happy to remove the offending file in a future release, I might override it, BUT the source must be present to avoid violating the DFSG. Please leave a comment line starting with # above the override. For a definitive answer on best practices on this point, please ask on #debian-mentors. Kind regards, Felix Lechner
