[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Why do we list individual copyright holders?



 ❦ 27 décembre 2017 17:27 +0800, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> :

>> 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 I have said previously, the problem also appears with warnings. I
would never dare running Lintian in pedantic mode.

Lintian is full of opinions. For example, I often get:

W: python-pysnmp4-doc: extra-license-file usr/share/doc/python-pysnmp4-doc/html/_sources/license.txt

I can add a "rm" or an override. Then, one day, the file will become
license.rst.txt and I have to update that. Each time, I have to build
the package, notice the warning, make a change, build again. Small time
loss, huge demotivation (when I tell people what I do as a Debian
packager, nobody seems to be impressed by that), totally useless warning
(this file doesn't harm anybody). Maybe there is a bug open about that,
maybe I could open one and dive into an endless debate about how a bad
maintainer I am to not want to remove extra files?

Each time, more warnings appear. Just today, I get:

W: python3-pysnmp4: python-package-depends-on-package-from-other-python-variant (Suggests: python-pysnmp4-doc)

My solution? Removing the Sugggests and pray someone doesn't open a bug
to request suggesting the documentation.

We also now have:

W: python-pysmi: new-package-should-not-package-python2-module

This is the translation of a group of people's opinion.


On the copyright subject, I got a reject about a NEW package because I
didn't list all copyright holders. I understand the matter is not
settled as more time is needed to collect opinions, but this is also a
huge demotivation factor. I won't upload a fixed version until someone
else is interested by the package.
-- 
O, what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive.
		-- Sir Walter Scott, "Marmion"

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: