Re: Opinions needed: reporting lintian overrides
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:21:54AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> If you put a config.cache file directly in the debian directory, you
>> probably know what you're doing and lintian shouldn't be warning about
>> it. That tag is designed to catch garbage mistakenly left around by
> Exclusively for garbage left around by upstream? Surely if an
> autogenerated config.cache manages to get into the .diff.gz, that's also
> a bug (in the clean target) that should be fixed?
Well, yeah, that too. It catches both.
> Though yes, debian/config.cache doesn't fit this use case anyway so
> lintian could mechanically distinguish it, it just didn't seem
> worthwhile to me to suggest hard-coding of such a rare exception.
Eh. There are a lot of picky little exceptions like that in lintian and
they don't seem to be much of a maintenance burden. Maybe I'm too used to
them. I'd generally rather add an exception if it's even vaguely general
than have more people add overrides, but I'm possibly too willing to do
> But the only way to have lintian shut up about these would be by using
> some heuristic to identify NSS modules. Well, I suppose
> /lib/libnss_*.so* doesn't leave too much room for false negatives, after
Exactly. Seems like a worthwhile change to me, particularly since the
various tags around shared library naming, SONAMEs, and so forth are one
of our larger groups of false positives and overrides.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>