Hi! On Sat, 2023-04-22 at 12:07:07 +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > Package: dpkg-dev > Version: 1.21.21 > Severity: wishlist > > When building libvirt, dpkg-gensymbols currently produces the > following output: > > dpkg-gensymbols: warning: debian/libvirt0/DEBIAN/symbols doesn't match > completely debian/libvirt0.symbols > --- debian/libvirt0.symbols (libvirt0_9.2.0-2_amd64) > +++ dpkg-gensymbolsFLVUCu 2023-04-22 11:43:15.646242440 +0200 > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ > libvirt-admin.so.0 libvirt0 #MINVER# > - (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_1.3.0 1.2.18 > +#MISSING: 9.2.0-2# (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_1.3.0 1.2.18 > (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_2.0.0 2.0.0~rc1 > (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_3.0.0 3.0.0 > (symver|optional)LIBVIRT_ADMIN_8.6.0 8.9.0 > > This is because debian/libvirt0.symbols contains > > libvirt-admin.so.0 libvirt0 #MINVER# > *@LIBVIRT_ADMIN_1.3.0 1.2.18 > > even though no LIBVIRT_ADMIN_1.3.0 symbol was ever added to the > library. > > It would be nice if such a mistake on the maintainer's part could be > reported in a way that can't be easily missed or ignored, i.e. a > build failure. After the maintainer has explicitly opted into this > behavior by setting DPKG_GENSYMBOLS_CHECK_LEVEL, of course :)
I think this is a good idea, and I'm planning on implementing it. The problem is that I don't know for example in Debian how many packages might FTBFS due to this. So off-hand adding this as part of an existing check level might be problematic. Adding it as a higher level would imply requiring more checks than the ones the maintainer might want to handle, so that does not look like a nice option, even if it would be the safest one. I guess if the check selection had been implemented as an union of strings instead of integer levels, it would be more extensible. Thanks, Guillem
