Re: Lintian errors and warnings
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Colin Watson wrote: You should not create hard links in the manual page directories, nor put absolute filenames in .so directives. Heh. There's a man page somewhere in debian that looks something like: a few man header-type things here .so /usr/bin/foo a few man footer-type things here You can probably imagine what an unholy mess of groff pretending to be shell comments and shell pretending to be groff comments are in /usr/bin/foo. :-) *shudder* That's just vile. Modulo a few cleanups it might be possible to use 'mandb --test' from lintian soon, or maybe to transcribe the lex code into a lintian check directly. If I do that, I suspect I might throw a warning in about the above. Quite a few man pages seem to use .so to pull in macro sets, as it happens - nmh pages use '.so /etc/nmh/tmac.h' to get the -mh macros, for instance. They should probably start using .mso instead. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
Bob Hilliard wrote: The only guidance I can find in policy 3.5.2.0 on the subject of stripping binaries is in section 11.1. Binaries: Note that by default all installed binaries should be stripped, either by using the `-s' flag to `install', or by calling `strip' on the binaries after they have been copied into `debian/tmp' but before the tree is made into a package. I have always followed this provision, using the `-s' flag to `install' in my rules files. The binaries lintian objected to were stripped. It's a warning because it's not a policy violation or anything, just something you can do a bit better. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~echo 'W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .note' | lintian-info W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .note N: N: The binary or shared library is stripped, but still contains a section N: that is not useful. The utilities (install -s and dh_strip) are N: patched to remove the .note and .comment sections. N: Another poster recommended using `strip --strip-unneeded' for these binaries, but that does not remove anything more than `strip' without options. The dictzip binary, unstripped, is 394689 bytes. After running `strip dictzip', it is 125116 bytes. After running `strip --strip-unneeded dictzip' it is still 125116 bytes. Running `strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note dictzip' reduces it to 122396 bytes. Right, and that size saving is why I made debhelper's dh_strip program begin to stip those sections (and more for shared libs). IIRC debhelper was first, lintian picked up on it, and nobody has even seen a need to mention it in policy. -- see shy jo
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
Colin Watson wrote: You should not create hard links in the manual page directories, nor put absolute filenames in .so directives. Heh. There's a man page somewhere in debian that looks something like: a few man header-type things here .so /usr/bin/foo a few man footer-type things here You can probably imagine what an unholy mess of groff pretending to be shell comments and shell pretending to be groff comments are in /usr/bin/foo. :-) -- see shy jo
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
Colin Watson wrote: You should not create hard links in the manual page directories, nor put absolute filenames in .so directives. Heh. There's a man page somewhere in debian that looks something like: a few man header-type things here .so /usr/bin/foo a few man footer-type things here You can probably imagine what an unholy mess of groff pretending to be shell comments and shell pretending to be groff comments are in /usr/bin/foo. :-) -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) wrote: Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The gzip package has a similar situation with gunzip and zcat, but it has created gunzip.1 and zcat.1 as hardlinks to gzip.1. Since man can deal with a manpage with multiple names, this seems like an unnecessary complication. Please install dictunzip.1 and dictzcat.1 as symlinks or hardlinks. Actually, ignore the "... or hardlinks" bit. Policy 13.1: You should not create hard links in the manual page directories, nor put absolute filenames in .so directives. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) writes: Please install dictunzip.1 and dictzcat.1 as symlinks or hardlinks. Actually, ignore the "... or hardlinks" bit. Policy 13.1: You should not create hard links in the manual page directories, nor put absolute filenames in .so directives. Thanks for both of your responses. I was about to reply, asking it hard links were acceptable when I received your followup. :-) Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559 PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 10:08:12AM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote: Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmm, did you run strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note on the binaries? Carlos Laviola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Call strip with '--strip-unneeded' in your debian/rules to strip these sections out of the binaries when building the package. Thanks to both of you. I have always used the -s option for install, which obviously doesn't do enough. As I mentioned, neither .note or .comment appears in either the binaries or the source. Are these sections automatically created by the compiler? I believe so. What are these sections for? Well... compiler notes and comments? :) The gcc version string or something. If lintian objects to them, shouldn't policy mention stripping them? Doesn't it already? -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If lintian objects to them, shouldn't policy mention stripping them? Doesn't it already? The only guidance I can find in policy 3.5.2.0 on the subject of stripping binaries is in section 11.1. Binaries: Note that by default all installed binaries should be stripped, either by using the `-s' flag to `install', or by calling `strip' on the binaries after they have been copied into `debian/tmp' but before the tree is made into a package. I have always followed this provision, using the `-s' flag to `install' in my rules files. The binaries lintian objected to were stripped. Section 11.2. Libraries says: Note that all installed shared libraries should be stripped with strip --strip-unneeded your-lib Another poster recommended using `strip --strip-unneeded' for these binaries, but that does not remove anything more than `strip' without options. The dictzip binary, unstripped, is 394689 bytes. After running `strip dictzip', it is 125116 bytes. After running `strip --strip-unneeded dictzip' it is still 125116 bytes. Running `strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note dictzip' reduces it to 122396 bytes. Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559 PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have added symlinks from /usr/bin/dictunzip and /usr/bin/dictzcat to /usr/bin/dictzip. The manpage for dictzip includes the following: NAME dictzip, dictunzip, dictzcat - compress (or expand) files, allowing random access SYNOPSIS dictzip [options] name dictunzip [options] name dictzcat name The commands man dictunzip and man dictzcat properly display this manpage, but lintian gives the following errors: E: dictd: binary-without-manpage dictunzip E: dictd: binary-without-manpage dictzcat The gzip package has a similar situation with gunzip and zcat, but it has created gunzip.1 and zcat.1 as hardlinks to gzip.1. Since man can deal with a manpage with multiple names, this seems like an unnecessary complication. Please install dictunzip.1 and dictzcat.1 as symlinks or hardlinks. If you don't, man has to decompress substantial parts of /usr/share/man looking for your man page (if catman hasn't run recently, which it might not have done), which is horrendously inefficient and probably the most common complaint I hear about man. man may stop supporting this in the future, precisely because it unavoidably causes such a usability problem immediately after you've installed some new man pages which it has to search. I should really find out how many packages behave in this way and get policy clarified on this point. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) wrote: Bob Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The gzip package has a similar situation with gunzip and zcat, but it has created gunzip.1 and zcat.1 as hardlinks to gzip.1. Since man can deal with a manpage with multiple names, this seems like an unnecessary complication. Please install dictunzip.1 and dictzcat.1 as symlinks or hardlinks. Actually, ignore the ... or hardlinks bit. Policy 13.1: You should not create hard links in the manual page directories, nor put absolute filenames in .so directives. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmm, did you run strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note on the binaries? Carlos Laviola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Call strip with '--strip-unneeded' in your debian/rules to strip these sections out of the binaries when building the package. Thanks to both of you. I have always used the -s option for install, which obviously doesn't do enough. As I mentioned, neither .note or .comment appears in either the binaries or the source. Are these sections automatically created by the compiler? What are these sections for? If lintian objects to them, shouldn't policy mention stripping them? (btw, consider running lintian in verbose mode (with -v), it would have explained you that.) I know about lintian -v, but never think of it when I have lintian problems. :-) Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559 PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson) writes: Please install dictunzip.1 and dictzcat.1 as symlinks or hardlinks. Actually, ignore the ... or hardlinks bit. Policy 13.1: You should not create hard links in the manual page directories, nor put absolute filenames in .so directives. Thanks for both of your responses. I was about to reply, asking it hard links were acceptable when I received your followup. :-) Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559 PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 10:08:12AM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote: Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmm, did you run strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note on the binaries? Carlos Laviola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Call strip with '--strip-unneeded' in your debian/rules to strip these sections out of the binaries when building the package. Thanks to both of you. I have always used the -s option for install, which obviously doesn't do enough. As I mentioned, neither .note or .comment appears in either the binaries or the source. Are these sections automatically created by the compiler? I believe so. What are these sections for? Well... compiler notes and comments? :) The gcc version string or something. If lintian objects to them, shouldn't policy mention stripping them? Doesn't it already? -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If lintian objects to them, shouldn't policy mention stripping them? Doesn't it already? The only guidance I can find in policy 3.5.2.0 on the subject of stripping binaries is in section 11.1. Binaries: Note that by default all installed binaries should be stripped, either by using the `-s' flag to `install', or by calling `strip' on the binaries after they have been copied into `debian/tmp' but before the tree is made into a package. I have always followed this provision, using the `-s' flag to `install' in my rules files. The binaries lintian objected to were stripped. Section 11.2. Libraries says: Note that all installed shared libraries should be stripped with strip --strip-unneeded your-lib Another poster recommended using `strip --strip-unneeded' for these binaries, but that does not remove anything more than `strip' without options. The dictzip binary, unstripped, is 394689 bytes. After running `strip dictzip', it is 125116 bytes. After running `strip --strip-unneeded dictzip' it is still 125116 bytes. Running `strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note dictzip' reduces it to 122396 bytes. Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard [EMAIL PROTECTED] |_) (_) |_) 1294 S.W. Seagull Way [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palm City, FL USA GPG Key ID: 390D6559 PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
RE: Lintian errors and warnings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Apr-2001 Bob Hilliard wrote: I am preparing a new release of dictd. Lintian gives the following warnings: W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .note W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .comment W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .note W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .comment W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .note W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .comment Is this a known bug in lintian? I have run strings(1) on these binaries, and have searched the source code for each, and neither .note or .comment appears in any of them. Call strip with '--strip-unneeded' in your debian/rules to strip these sections out of the binaries when building the package. (btw, consider running lintian in verbose mode (with -v), it would have explained you that.) - -- carlos laviola - icq #55799523 $ chown us:us /your_base -R chown: what you say!! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE64OlnZAYCJzUW03IRAgBOAJ9Li7RnP/wi5kWYtwuJL9eyT4/1tACeJyWT oqJeVihyamTK6mI9QqNnbzc= =9R7L -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lintian errors and warnings
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 05:00:31PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote: I am preparing a new release of dictd. Lintian gives the following warnings: W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .note W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .comment W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .note W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .comment W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .note W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .comment Is this a known bug in lintian? I have run strings(1) on these binaries, and have searched the source code for each, and neither .note or .comment appears in any of them. Hmm, did you run strip --remove-section=.comment --remove-section=.note on the binaries? -- Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
RE: Lintian errors and warnings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Apr-2001 Bob Hilliard wrote: I am preparing a new release of dictd. Lintian gives the following warnings: W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .note W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dictzip .comment W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .note W: dictd: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/sbin/dictd .comment W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .note W: dict: binary-has-unneeded-section ./usr/bin/dict .comment Is this a known bug in lintian? I have run strings(1) on these binaries, and have searched the source code for each, and neither .note or .comment appears in any of them. Call strip with '--strip-unneeded' in your debian/rules to strip these sections out of the binaries when building the package. (btw, consider running lintian in verbose mode (with -v), it would have explained you that.) - -- carlos laviola - icq #55799523 $ chown us:us /your_base -R chown: what you say!! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE64OlnZAYCJzUW03IRAgBOAJ9Li7RnP/wi5kWYtwuJL9eyT4/1tACeJyWT oqJeVihyamTK6mI9QqNnbzc= =9R7L -END PGP SIGNATURE-
