Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> I already often open or reply to bugs in lintian (including when I think
> severity is wrong). The main problem is not when lintian is wrong, the
> main problem if when lintian is right but is nit-picking. While I
> understand some of us would like to reach perfection, it is tiresome to
> fix every small issue, notably when they don't have any other effect
> than making a tool happy (and a few people) happy. And I never run
> lintian at pedantic level.
If you aren't interested in package polishing, it sounds like it would
be best for you to use the lintian profile that only reports
reject-level or error-level complaints. Possibly run lintian in
pedantic mode once per release cycle per package.
> As an example, the spelling errors are useful for debian/ directory (as
> informational), but totally useless for upstream stuff. For me, they are
> not worth telling upstream, they are not worth adding to an override
> (which could become outdated and give you another lintian warning).
For me and others the right answer to spelling errors is to send a
patch upstream, usually they are happy to apply it.
> I have just updated a team-maintained package and I get:
>
> W: python-pyasn1: spelling-error-in-description-synopsis Python Python (duplicate word) Python
> W: python3-pyasn1: spelling-error-in-description-synopsis Python Python (duplicate word) Python
>
> Description: ASN.1 library for Python (Python 2 module)
> Description: ASN.1 library for Python (Python 3 module)
As a human reading a description, I think I would prefer these:
Description: ASN.1 library for Python 2
Description: ASN.1 library for Python 3
The number is the only part of the brackets that seems useful there.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Reply to: