--- /dev/null
+Check-Script: shared-libs
+Author: Christian Schwarz <schwarz@debian.org>
+Abbrev: shl
+Type: binary, udeb
+Unpack-Level: 1
+Needs-Info: file-info, objdump-info
+Info: This script checks if a binary package conforms to shared library policy.
+
+Tag: shlib-with-executable-bit
+Type: error
+Info: Shared libraries should be mode 0644.
+Ref: policy 8.1
+
+Tag: shlib-with-bad-permissions
+Type: warning
+Info: Shared libraries should be mode 0644.
+Ref: policy 8.1
+
+Tag: shlib-with-non-pic-code
+Type: error
+Ref: policy 10.2
+Info: The listed shared libraries contain object code that was compiled
+ without -fPIC. All object code in shared libraries should be recompiled
+ separately from the static libraries with the -fPIC option.
+ .
+ Another common mistake that causes this problem is linking with
+ <tt>gcc -Wl,-shared</tt> instead of <tt>gcc -shared</tt>.
+ .
+ In some cases, exceptions to this rule are warranted. If this is such a
+ case, follow the procedure outlined in Policy and then please document
+ the exception by adding a lintian override to this package.
+
+Tag: ldconfig-symlink-missing-for-shlib
+Type: error
+Info: The package should not only include the shared library itself, but also
+ the symbolic link which ldconfig would produce. (This is necessary, so
+ that the link gets removed by dpkg automatically when the package
+ gets removed.) If the symlink is in the package, check that the SONAME of the
+ library matches the info in the shlibs file.
+Ref: policy 8.1
+
+Tag: ldconfig-symlink-before-shlib-in-deb
+Type: error
+Info: In the package contents list, the shared library has to come before
+ any symbolic links referencing the shared library.
+Ref: policy 8.1
+
+Tag: dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink
+Type: warning
+Info: A `-dev' package is supposed to install a `libsomething.so' symbolic
+ link referencing the corresponding shared library. Notice how the link name
+ doesn't include the version number -- this is because such a link is used
+ by the linker when other programs are built against this shared library.
+Ref: policy 8.4
+
+Tag: non-dev-pkg-with-shlib-symlink
+Type: warning
+Info: Although this package is not a `-dev' package, it installs a
+ `libsomething.so' symbolic link referencing the corresponding shared
+ library. When the link doesn't include the version number, it is used by
+ the linker when other programs are built against this shared library.
+ .
+ Shared libraries are supposed to place such symbolic links in their
+ respective `-dev' packages, so it is a bug to include it with the main
+ library package.
+ .
+ However, if this is a small package which includes the runtime and the
+ development libraries, this is not a bug. In the latter case, please
+ override this warning.
+Ref: policy 8.4
+
+Tag: preinst-calls-ldconfig
+Type: warning
+Info: The preinst script calls ldconfig. Calls to ldconfig should only be
+ in postinst and postrm scripts.
+Ref: policy 8.1.1
+
+Tag: prerm-calls-ldconfig
+Type: warning
+Info: The prerm script calls ldconfig. Calls to ldconfig should only
+ be in postinst and postrm scripts.
+Ref: policy 8.1.1
+
+Tag: postrm-unsafe-ldconfig
+Type: warning
+Info: The postrm script calls ldconfig unsafely. The postrm
+ must only call ldconfig when given the argument "remove".
+Ref: policy 8.1.1
+
+Tag: no-shlibs-control-file
+Type: error
+Info: Although the package includes a shared library, the package does not
+ have a shlibs control file. If this is intentional, please override this
+ error.
+Ref: policy 8.6
+
+Tag: pkg-has-shlibs-control-file-but-no-actual-shared-libs
+Type: error
+Info: Although the package does not include any shared libraries, it does
+ have a shlibs control file. If you did include a shared library, check that
+ the SONAME of the library is set and that it matches the contents of the
+ shlibs file.
+ .
+ SONAMEs are set with something like <tt>gcc -Wl,-soname,libfoo.so.0</tt>,
+ where 0 is the major version of the library. If your package uses libtool,
+ then libtool invoked with the right options should be doing this.
+
+Tag: duplicate-entry-in-shlibs-control-file
+Type: error
+Info: The shlibs control file contains a duplicate entry.
+
+Tag: shlib-missing-in-control-file
+Type: error
+Info: The package contains a shared library that is not listed in the
+ shlibs control file. If this is intentional, please override this error.
+Ref: policy 8.6
+
+Tag: unused-shlib-entry-in-control-file
+Type: warning
+Info: The shlibs control file contains an entry for a shared library that
+ is not installed by this package.
+Ref: policy 8.6
+
+Tag: shlibs-declares-dependency-on-other-package
+Type: warning
+Info: This package declares in its shlibs control file a dependency on
+ some other package (and not one listed in the Provides of this package).
+ .
+ Packages should normally only list in their shlibs control file the
+ shared libraries included in that package, and therefore the dependencies
+ listed there should normally be satisfied by either the package itself or
+ one of its Provides.
+ .
+ In unusual circumstances where it's necessary to declare more complex
+ dependencies in the shlibs control file, please add a lintian override
+ for this warning.
+Ref: policy 8.6
+
+Tag: ldconfig-symlink-referencing-wrong-file
+Type: error
+Info: The symbolic link references the wrong file. (It should reference
+ the shared library.)
+Ref: policy 8.1
+
+Tag: ldconfig-symlink-is-not-a-symlink
+Type: error
+Info: The package installs a file with the name, ldconfig would use for
+ the symbolic link to reference the shared library.
+Ref: policy 8.1
+
+Tag: postinst-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
+Type: warning
+Info: The postinst script calls ldconfig even though no shared libraries are
+ installed in a directory controlled by the dynamic library loader.
+Ref: policy 8.1.1
+
+Tag: udeb-postinst-must-not-call-ldconfig
+Type: error
+Info: The postinst script calls ldconfig, which is an error in udebs.
+ ldconfig is not available and not needed in debian-installer
+
+Tag: postrm-has-useless-call-to-ldconfig
+Type: warning
+Info: The postrm script calls ldconfig even though no shared libraries are
+ installed in a directory controlled by the dynamic library loader.
+Ref: policy 8.1.1
+
+Tag: postinst-must-call-ldconfig
+Type: error
+Info: The package installs shared libraries in a directory controlled by
+ the dynamic library loader. Therefore, the package must call `ldconfig' in
+ its postinst script.
+Ref: policy 8.1.1
+
+Tag: postrm-should-call-ldconfig
+Type: warning
+Info: The package installs shared libraries in a directory controlled by
+ the dynamic library loader. Therefore, the package should call `ldconfig'
+ in its postrm script.
+Ref: policy 8.1.1
+
+Tag: sharedobject-in-library-directory-missing-soname
+Type: error
+Info: A shared object was identified in a library directory (i.e. a
+ directory in the standard linker path) which doesn't have a SONAME.
+ This is usually an error.
+ .
+ SONAMEs are set with something like <tt>gcc -Wl,-soname,libfoo.so.0</tt>,
+ where 0 is the major version of the library. If your package uses libtool,
+ then libtool invoked with the right options should be doing this.
+
+Tag: shlib-without-PT_GNU_STACK-section
+Type: error
+Info: The listed shared libraries lacks a PT_GNU_STACK section. This forces
+ the dynamic linker to make the stack executable.
+ .
+ The shared lib is linked either with a non-GNU linker or a linker which is
+ older than two years. This problem can be fixed with a rebuild.
+
+Tag: shlib-with-executable-stack
+Type: warning
+Info: The listed shared libraries declares the stack as executable.
+ .
+ Executable stack is usualy an error as it is only needed if the code
+ contains GCC trampolines or similar constructs which uses code on the
+ stack. One possible source for false positives are object files built
+ from assembler files which don't define a proper .note.GNU-stack
+ section.
+
+Tag: symbols-file-contains-current-version-with-debian-revision
+Type: error
+Info: Debian revisions should be stripped from versions in symbols files.
+ Not doing so leads to dependencies unsatisfiable by backports (1.0-1~bpo
+ << 1.0-1 while 1.0-1~bpo >= 1.0). If the debian revision can't
+ be stripped because the symbol really appearead between two specific
+ Debian revisions, you should postfix the version with a single "~"
+ (example: 1.0-3~ if the symbol appeared in 1.0-3).
+ .
+ This problem normally means that the symbols were added automatically by
+ dpkg-gensymbols. dpkg-gensymbols uses the full version number for the
+ dependency associated to any new symbol that it detects. The maintainer
+ must update the <tt>debian/<package>.symbols</tt> file by adding
+ the new symbols with the corresponding upstream version.
+
+Tag: symbols-file-contains-debian-revision
+Type: warning
+Info: Debian revisions should be stripped from versions in symbols files.
+ Not doing so leads to dependencies unsatisfiable by backports (1.0-1~bpo
+ << 1.0-1 while 1.0-1~bpo >= 1.0). If the debian revision can't
+ be stripped because the symbol really appearead between two specific
+ Debian revisions, you should postfix the version with a single "~"
+ (example: 1.0-3~ if the symbol appeared in 1.0-3).
+
+Tag: syntax-error-in-symbols-file
+Type: error
+Info: The symbols file contains an entry that does not follow the syntax
+ rules for symbols files.
+ .
+ This may be due to the entry appearing out of sequence.
+Ref: deb-symbols(5)
+
+Tag: duplicate-entry-in-symbols-control-file
+Type: error
+Info: The symbols control file contains a duplicate entry.
+
+Tag: no-symbols-control-file
+Type: info
+Info: Although the package includes a shared library, the package does not
+ have a symbols control file.
+
+Tag: pkg-has-symbols-control-file-but-no-shared-libs
+Type: error
+Info: Although the package does not include any shared libraries, it does
+ have a symbols control file. If you did include a shared library, check that
+ the SONAME of the library is set and that it matches the contents of the
+ symbols file.
+ .
+ SONAMEs are set with something like <tt>gcc -Wl,-soname,libfoo.so.0</tt>,
+ where 0 is the major version of the library. If your package uses libtool,
+ then libtool invoked with the right options should be doing this.
+
+Tag: shlib-missing-in-symbols-control-file
+Type: warning
+Info: The package contains a shared library that is not listed in the
+ symbols control file. This may not be a problem if, for example,
+ the library is a C++ library.
+
+Tag: unused-shlib-entry-in-symbols-control-file
+Type: warning
+Info: The symbols control file contains an entry for a shared library that
+ is not installed by this package.
+
+Tag: symbols-declares-dependency-on-other-package
+Type: warning
+Info: This package declares in its symbols control file a dependency on
+ some other package (and not one listed in the Provides of this package).
+ .
+ Packages should normally only list in their symbols control file the
+ shared libraries included in that package, and therefore the dependencies
+ listed there should normally be satisfied by either the package itself or
+ one of its Provides.
+ .
+ In unusual circumstances where it's necessary to declare more complex
+ dependencies in the symbols control file, please add a lintian override
+ for this warning.
+Ref: policy 8.6
+
+Tag: invalid-template-id-in-symbols-file
+Type: error
+Info: The symbol definition refers to an alternative dependency template
+ which is not defined for the library containing the symbol.
+ .
+ The first alternative dependency template for a library the id number
+ of 1, with the ids of subsequent alternative templates increasing in
+ sequence.
+
+Tag: unknown-meta-field-in-symbols-file
+Type: error
+Info: The symbols control file contains an unknown meta-information field.
+ .
+ A list of currently supported fields may be found in deb-control(5).
+
+Tag: symbols-declared-but-not-shlib
+Type: error
+Info: The symbols control file contains dependency and symbol information
+ for a shared library which is not listed in the shlibs control file.
projects / maemian / blobdiff