I would not override dh_dwz nor dh_strip. My opinion is that what you
are trying to fix are deficiencies of the toolchain that should be fixed
there.
First to address dh_strip issue. From what I've researched. The issue
was raised by the static library generated from bisect_ppx did not
obey the standard static library name scheme. The dh_strip[0] will
strip the static library with `lib-*` prefix. But as we can observe
the building:
```
I: libbisect-ppx-ocaml-dev: unstripped-static-library
(bisect__Runtime.o) [usr/lib/ocaml/bisect_ppx/runtime/bisect.a]
I: libbisect-ppx-ocaml-dev: unstripped-static-library
(bisect_common.o) [usr/lib/ocaml/bisect_ppx/common/bisect_common.a]
I: libbisect-ppx-ocaml-dev: unstripped-static-library
(bisect_ppx__Exclude.o bisect_ppx__Exclude_lexer.o
bisect_ppx__Exclude_parser.o bisect_ppx
__Exclusions.o bisect_ppx__Instrument.o bisect_ppx__Register.o)
[usr/lib/ocaml/bisect_ppx/bisect_ppx.a]
```
In fact, the original solution is that I refer to this[1]. But I am
not sure if this is a toolchain issue or not, so I have reported this
to upstream[2] also. The workaround for this issue I could think of:
1. Keep those lintian messages here and open a reportbug to track the
issue until upstream fix the issue;
2. Use the solution like [1] as my previous post and open a reportbug
to track the issue until upstream fix the issue;
3. Wait to upstream to fix this issue;
4. Persuading the maintainers of debhelper to strip static library
with broader name scheme.But I think this is not a good wishlist.:)
Personally I prefer to option 2 still.