On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 07:41 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> I happened to notice on packages.qa.debian.org that the kernel packages
> have 250 lintian warnings, of which the vast majority come from just a
> few easy to fix issues.
>
> The following patch address the worst (or rather, most numerous) of the
> warnings.
>
> debhelper-but-no-misc-depends
>
> By far the majority of the warnings. Resolved by adding the
> requisite ${Depends:misc} to all binary packages. The variable
> ends up empty except for the linux-base package.
>
> dbg-package-missing-depends
>
> Add dependency on the corresponding linux-image package to each
> -dbg package. It's possible this is not appropriate for a kernel
> -dbg in which case I could make it an override instead.
I'm not sure whether this is appropriate. The kernel image may be
installed externally. Also, the debug packages contain images with
debug information, not just the debug information.
> empty-binary-package
>
> Resolved by adding the word virtual to the relevant package
> descriptions.
I prefer 'metapackage'. And I think that should go in the short
description (as in the packages generated by linux-latest-2.6).
> After this patch it looks from
> http://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/debian-kernel@lists.debian.org.html
> like the remaining Lintian warnings would be (I only considered the
> linux-2.6 source package):
>
> linux-base - no-debconf-config
> (should be linux-base.config not linux-base.postinst?)
We cannot make this a config script because it requires external tools
just to work out whether it should ask any questions, and a config
script may be run before the package dependencies are satisfied. This
warning should be overridden.
> linux-doc-2.6.32 - extra-license-file
> linux-image-*-FLAVOUR - postrm-does-not-purge-debconf
> (probably a false positive related to postrm being in Perl?)
I think this one may be real.
> linux-manual-2.6.32 - manpage-has-errors-from-man
> (lots of these and they all look to be the same class of error)
It's a bug in docbook-xsl, reported as #569828.
> out-of-date-standards-version
>
> Shall I apply? I guess if so then something similar ought to go into
> trunk (I was looking at the sid branch)
[...]
There are a load of changes that should be merged to trunk, which I can
do after this.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part