Debian Bug report logs - #687022
lintian: regex error in lacks-unversioned-link-to-shared-library

Full log

Message #50 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

Received: (at 687022) by bugs.debian.org; 20 Sep 2013 22:46:18 +0000
From [email protected] Fri Sep 20 22:46:18 2013
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
	(2011-06-06) on buxtehude.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,FOURLA,
	HAS_BUG_NUMBER,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham
	version=3.3.2-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 21; hammy, 148; neutral, 59; spammy,
	3. spammytokens:0.990-+--re-order, 0.920-+--reorder, 0.891-+--exclusive
	hammytokens:0.000-+--H*u:1.5.21, 0.000-+--H*UA:1.5.21, 0.000-+--Lintian,
	0.000-+--H*u:2010-09-15, 0.000-+--H*UA:2010-09-15
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.4])
	by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	id 1VN9Sr-000560-Bh
	for [email protected]; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 22:46:18 +0000
Received: from yellowpig (unknown [82.252.209.65])
	by smtp4-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EDA04C8020;
	Sat, 21 Sep 2013 00:46:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bill by yellowpig with local (Exim 4.80)
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	id 1VN9Sg-0002BZ-JL; Sat, 21 Sep 2013 00:46:06 +0200
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 00:46:06 +0200
From: Bill Allombert <[email protected]>
To: Leo 'costela' Antunes <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Cc: Niels Thykier <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Bug#687022: found also with libm4ri
Message-ID: <20130920224606.GH5780@yellowpig>
References: <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
 <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 02:22:48AM +0200, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 07/01/13 16:32, Niels Thykier wrote:
> 
> > This missing "+" in the regex has been fixed in Lintian 2.5.11
> > (experimental)[1]; though my question remains if we should really
> > re-order those regexes.
> 
> I believe you are right. The idea is to find a link with either of the
> two formats:
> libwhatever.so -> libwhatever-X.so
> libwhatever.so -> libwhatever.so.X
> 
> So the two regexes really should be mutually exclusive.

No. there is no requirement either technical or in policy, for a shared library
to follow any of theses convention and lintian must not assume so.

The only requirement is that for each libraries in the lib package there is at
least one matching symlink lib*.so pointing to it in the -dev package.  The
exact name is a matter of C API that lintian cannot guess.

For example, it is perfectly valid to have
libwhatever.so -> libwhatever-X.so.Y.Z
or even 
libfoo.so -> libbar-X.so.Z
(For example if libbar is an alternative implementation of libfoo, with the same API
but a different ABI. Makefile using gcc -lfoo should still work when libbar-dev is 
installed).

This might explain the large number of false positive for a test which is
marked "certain". This is a regression from previous lintian version.

So I think using a regexp is misguided. It would be more reliable to follow the
symlink.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[email protected]>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.