Re: RFS: ampache (updated package)
On Tue, Oct 20 2009, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 02:28:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 20 2009, George Danchev wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Oct 20 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Jan Hauke Rahm <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> >> >> In future check your packages with 'lintian -IE --pedantic *.changes' to
>> >> >> catch minor issues. But the package looks good! :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Personally, I use this as it catches more things and gives more detail:
>> >> >
>> >> > lintian --info --display-info --display-experimental --pedantic
>> >> > --show-overrides --checksums --color
>> >> I find that experimental and pedantic add far too much
>> >> irrelevant chatter, and that it tends to mask the problems one should
>> >> actually fix.
>> > Then split'em up and use on demand. For instance, use one shell
>> > alias for 'must fix these', when done use another one for 'pedantic'
>> > mode, if you like to, which should be enough to demask lintian
>> > reports.
>> > I think that experimenting with experimental/pedantic and
>> > eventually report results to BTS could help lintian developers to
>> > evaluate some information in advance about future infiltration and
>> > impact of these experimental checks, how useful, robust, or eventually
>> > boring they are, so they tweak the development heading according to
>> > the 'wind conditions'.
>> If you want to help improve lintian, sure. If you have the
>> experience and the patience, that is great. But suggesting it to a
>> bunch of novices trying to learn how to create packages might notbe the
>> best advice -- the experimental stuff is not something that is
>> necessarily things that ought to be fixed in the first place, and the
>> -I stuff is debatable. If you are learning how to package stuff,
>> concentrate on things you _do_ need to fix. Move on to helping fix
>> lintian once you are comfortable with packaging, and have developed
>> some judgment about where lintian ought to be heading.
> As much as In understand your issue here, note that I suggested the
> experimental and pedantic test for a last check. I expect that a package
> is working (i.e. no FTBFS, installable, removable etc.) even before
> lintian is used at all. As a last stepbefore uploading a package I find
> -I -E --pedantic very appropriate.
The fallacy here is that the experimental stuff is clutter, it
is not really a check of your package -- it is a check of lintian, and
unless you give feedback to lintian, you might as well not obscure the
rest of the information from lintian.
Secondly, have you read the description of pedantic? Pedantic
tags are Lintian at its most pickiest and include checks for particular
Debian packaging styles, checks that are very frequently wrong, and
checks that many people disagree with. Expect false positives and
Lintian tags that you don't consider useful if you use this option.
> You catch common typos in descriptions, catch some "should" guidelines
> from policy etc. It's not like you have to fix it but if you can, all
> the better...
Hmm. Information that is:
Has false Positives.
Matter of taste.
If you are learning how to package stuff for Debian, is this
really a good use of your time? You can't yet tell that what lintian
tells you is right or wrong, and you can't yet tell if the check is
merely a matter of taste. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin etc
My brother sent me a postcard the other day with this big satellite
photo of the entire earth on it. On the back it said: "Wish you were
here". -- Steven Wright
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C