Re: Possibly excessive lintian warnings (was: NEW processing)
On 2008-12-04, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> Sune Vuorela <nospam@vuorela.dk> writes:
>
>> Latest, the warning about quilt patches without any description. Sure it
>> is nice to have a description, but I don't need lintian to tell it.
>
> I do think the warning is correct for a lint program, and it sounds like
> you do agree that this is something that should be improved about the
> package. The prioritization just may be off.
Yes. downgrading to I is a good solution.
And other warnings that could be changed:
dbg-package-missing-depends - if there 1 dbg package and multiple
arch depending packages beside that.
> Much of this is just more of the desktop file fiasco, since KDE doesn't
> follow what's supposedly a shared standard. I've complained about that at
> some length before and don't know what people are supposed to do with
> desktop files. If anyone from the KDE team is willing to propose patches
> or even concrete actionable changes to how Lintian checks desktop files so
> that KDE's desktop files don't produce tons of noise, I'd love to hear
> them.
A good solution is to get lenny out of the door so that we can ditch
kde3 and go on with kde4. KDE4 do follow the specs. Kde3 originates
from before it was a shared standard (one of the few fdo standards that
is actually a *shared* standard and not a rubber stamp on gnome
standards, but that's a entirely different issue)
> You're apparently not using detached symbols for your debugging libraries,
> which is another small pile of warnings.
we are, but apparantly dh_strip has issues under some conditions with
some of the files.
> You have a huge and difficult-to-package piece of software and inadequate
> resources to do all the work on it that should ideally be done. I get
This is why I need automatic tools that *helps* me and not tools that
gets in the way.
> Not having a man page for a binary is a Policy violation. If Lintian
> doesn't complain about Policy violations, it's hard to understand what the
> point of it would be. There's a reason why that's a warning and not an
> error, though. :)
It is also one of the reasons why we aren't overriding that.
>> Please stop making the lives for the developers harder. Especially the
>> idea about automatically rejecting based on lintian.
>
> The only thing that's been seriously discussed with an eye to
> implementation, so far as I know, is to automatically reject on the basis
> of a hand-selected and very limited subset of Lintian tags, which would
> probably not affect anything that you're doing and which would certainly
> not automatically block packages with proper overrides. I don't think
> this is going to hurt you as much as you think it would.
Some people in this thread are suggesting automatic rejecting based on any E: tag.
/Sune
Reply to: