On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 04:21:46PM -0500, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I can't see any reason a package would list any packages other than itself > > in its shlibs file. I suggest putting the check in, and if there are lots > > of packages doing this then we can pursue in policy why and whether it's > > worthwhile. But I really doubt it's the case. > > Lots of packages list other packages in their shlibs files. For example, all > the xaw replacement libraries must do this. > > Hm, I just realized something. I belive that policy or the packaging manual > currently says that packages that contain libraries should include shlibs > files. But why? Wouldn't it make more sense if the shlibs file was in the > associated -dev package? After all, the contents of the file only matters if > you are doing development with the library. The file format is such they > could be moved over wholesale to -dev packages with no changes. > > Then the proposed lintian check would make sense, though there will still be > exceptions.
7 years later, I got hit by this in one of my packages. It would have helped if lintian gave me at least a warning about the shlibs content... Sure there are exceptions, but on my system, there are 17 over 381 shlibs. As far as it is known to be exceptions, it's not a problem to have the warnings there, they could even be put in lintian overrides... Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
