Hi, On Mon, 3 May 2010, Dirk Müller wrote:
libv4lconvert0.x86_64: E: shlib-fixed-dependency (Badness: 440) libv4l = 0.6.4 libv4l1-0.x86_64: E: shlib-fixed-dependency (Badness: 440) libv4l = 0.6.4 libv4l2-0.x86_64: E: shlib-fixed-dependency (Badness: 440) libv4l = Is that check really correct? Looks genuine to me. Why do you consider it a false positive? Its not, the main "libv4l" just contains plugins.
does "it's not" mean that it is not a false positive? I agree with that :-)
This is the classic example of a correctly identified dependency issue. the plugins are not packaged in a library-specific subdir, and therefore would conflict when trying to install two versions of the library in parallel. Thats exactly what the check is trying to achieve.
FWIW I completely agree with Dirk. The only improvement that could be done is to not report the same wrong dependency three times, but instead count it only once (the error message should ideally still mention all three subpackages, though). Ciao, Michael.