Bug#512645: lintian reports errors in package foo, because it does not honor files in the foo-data package, on which foo depends
Russ Allbery schrieb:
Lintian intentionally doesn't check for dangling symlinks at all because
of this issue. See #217023.
Oh, I didn't know this.
In this case, I think you should keep the menu package in the binary
package and not move it to the data package. (Honestly, I would do the
same thing with the man pages as well.) There really isn't a need to move
everything into /usr/share, only the large data. Man pages and menu files
are small and don't waste much space in the binary package, and I would
just leave them there.
This is what I did, i.e. I put parts of /usr/share in the foo-data
package and other parts like /usr/share/{applications,pixmaps,man} in
the foo package to get rid of lintian warning. However, this is what I
initially wanted to avoid, i.e. mix up arch-indep stuff between
arch:any and arch:all packages.
Otherwise, you can add an override here as well.
This is what I wanted to avoid, too.
I understand your concern, but it's unlikely that Lintian is going to
change in any significant way in this area.
Alright, but it feels good having talked about it. ;) I'll leave the
bug report open, though.
Cheers,
Fabian
--
Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik (LEAT)
Universitätsstr. 150, IB 3/134
D-44780 Bochum
Telefon: +49 (0)234 / 32-26334
Fax: +49 (0)234 / 32-14227
E-Mail: greffr...@leat.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#512645: lintian reports errors in package foo, because it does not honor files in the foo-data package, on which foo depends
Hello Russ, Russ Allbery schrieb: Right, the problem is that Lintian checks a package at a time, so while it's checking foo, it has no access to foo-data. Lintian is designed to check each package in isolation. It's difficult to do more than that and still support things like lintian.d.o. OK, I see... That being said, there is a possible hack that we can apply here that may fix the common case of checking a *.changes file for a set of related packages and on lintian.d.o. See the discussion in #456657 for more details. Well, I have no clue about lintian internals, but isn't the check for the dangling /usr/lib/libfoo.so - /usr/lib/libfoo.so.$SONAME in libfoo-dev packages a similar exception? At least it throws no error if /usr/lib/libfoo.so.$SONAME does exist in the libfoo$SONAME package and libfoo-dev depends on it. This is why binary-without-manpage explicitly says to add an override for this case, though. The binary-without-manpage warning is only the simplest one that crossed my mind. A more complicated example is realted to debian/foo.menu files. Imagine the same situation than before: A binary /usr/bin/foo in the foo package and all arch-indep content of /usr/share in the foo-data package. foo denepds on foo-data. Now I add a debian/foo.menu file which contains the lines 'command=/usr/bin/foo' and 'icon=/usr/share/pixmaps/foo.xpm'. Of course, since the file /usr/share/pixmaps/foo.xpm cannot be found in the foo package, lintian throws the menu-icon-missing warning. This will be another lintian overrides. :/ On the other hand, if I move the menu file to debian/foo-data.menu, the menu-icon-missing warning will be gone, but the menu-command-not-in-package warning will appear instead, since /usr/bin/foo is not part of foo-data. Even worse, I cannot make foo-data depend on foo, because I have to avoid circular dependencies. So all I can do is make foo-data recommend foo, but then it is still possible that a user mistakenly install foo-data without foo and ends up with a dead menu entry. Please, I really don't want to add a bunch of lintian overrides for reasonably packaged split-up packages. ;) Cheers, Fabian -- Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath Ruhr-Universität Bochum Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik (LEAT) Universitätsstr. 150, IB 3/134 D-44780 Bochum Telefon: +49 (0)234 / 32-26334 Fax: +49 (0)234 / 32-14227 E-Mail: greffr...@leat.ruhr-uni-bochum.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#512645: lintian reports errors in package foo, because it does not honor files in the foo-data package, on which foo depends
Fabian Greffrath greffr...@leat.rub.de writes: Russ Allbery schrieb: That being said, there is a possible hack that we can apply here that may fix the common case of checking a *.changes file for a set of related packages and on lintian.d.o. See the discussion in #456657 for more details. Well, I have no clue about lintian internals, but isn't the check for the dangling /usr/lib/libfoo.so - /usr/lib/libfoo.so.$SONAME in libfoo-dev packages a similar exception? At least it throws no error if /usr/lib/libfoo.so.$SONAME does exist in the libfoo$SONAME package and libfoo-dev depends on it. Lintian intentionally doesn't check for dangling symlinks at all because of this issue. See #217023. This is why binary-without-manpage explicitly says to add an override for this case, though. The binary-without-manpage warning is only the simplest one that crossed my mind. A more complicated example is realted to debian/foo.menu files. In this case, I think you should keep the menu package in the binary package and not move it to the data package. (Honestly, I would do the same thing with the man pages as well.) There really isn't a need to move everything into /usr/share, only the large data. Man pages and menu files are small and don't waste much space in the binary package, and I would just leave them there. Otherwise, you can add an override here as well. Please, I really don't want to add a bunch of lintian overrides for reasonably packaged split-up packages. ;) I understand your concern, but it's unlikely that Lintian is going to change in any significant way in this area. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#512645: lintian reports errors in package foo, because it does not honor files in the foo-data package, on which foo depends
Package: lintian
Severity: minor
Version: 2.1.5
Dear lintian maintainers,
sorry for the subject line, but my concern is a little bit too
complicated to describe it in one line, I guess. ;)
Imagine I build a package foo, which consists of a binary in /usr/bin
and architecture-independent content in /usr/share. Since the stuff in
/usr/share takes quite a lot of space (think of files in
/usr/share/locale) I want to put it in an arch:all package called
foo-data. To achieve this I tell foo's Makefile that it must install
into destdir=$CURDIR)/debian/tmp; then I create a debian/foo.install
file containing the line debian/tmp/usr/bin and a
debian/foo-data.install file that contains debian/tmp/usr/share. Of
course foo now also needs to depend on foo-data which I achieve by
adding foo-data (=${source:Version}) to foo's Depends line in
debian/control. Alright, nothing new so far.
But now, if I run lintian on the newly created packages, I get
warnings like binary-without-manpage: usr/bin/foo which simply isn't
true. There *is* a manpage for /usr/bin/foo, it simply isn't installed
in the foo package but in the foo-data package and I even made sure
that foo does not get installed without foo-data.
Could you please make lintian check if there is a package (foo-data)
created from the same source that contains the obviously missing files
and if the assumed faulty package (foo) depends on this package
(foo-data)?
Thank you very much!
Cheers,
Fabian
--
Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik (LEAT)
Universitätsstr. 150, IB 3/134
D-44780 Bochum
Telefon: +49 (0)234 / 32-26334
Fax: +49 (0)234 / 32-14227
E-Mail: greffr...@leat.ruhr-uni-bochum.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#512645: lintian reports errors in package foo, because it does not honor files in the foo-data package, on which foo depends
severity 512645 wishlist merge 512645 120323 retitle 512645 [checks/manpages] missing man pages reported for foo that are in foo-data thanks Fabian Greffrath greffr...@leat.rub.de writes: But now, if I run lintian on the newly created packages, I get warnings like binary-without-manpage: usr/bin/foo which simply isn't true. There *is* a manpage for /usr/bin/foo, it simply isn't installed in the foo package but in the foo-data package and I even made sure that foo does not get installed without foo-data. Right, the problem is that Lintian checks a package at a time, so while it's checking foo, it has no access to foo-data. Lintian is designed to check each package in isolation. It's difficult to do more than that and still support things like lintian.d.o. That being said, there is a possible hack that we can apply here that may fix the common case of checking a *.changes file for a set of related packages and on lintian.d.o. See the discussion in #456657 for more details. This is why binary-without-manpage explicitly says to add an override for this case, though. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
