Re: depends-on-obsolete-package lsb-base
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 04:48:44PM -0800, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> > > About the execution of this change repository-wide:
> > >
> > > Is anyone working on feeding
> > > https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/data/fields/obsolete-packages
> > > to https://janitor.debian.net/scrub-obsolete/ so that at least
> > > Salsa-maintained packages would swiftly get on path to get this
> > > dependency removed (and Salsa-CI failures stopped on this Lintian
> > > error)?
> >
> > That's an interesting idea. The current format
> > https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/data/fields/obsolete-packages
> > isn't super machine-readable. Perhaps it could be split into one file
> > with human-readable hints, and one with straightforward replacements
> > (e.g. "libtinfo-dev => libncurses-dev" )?
>
> Related, current lintian-brush actually adds lsb-base back if it was removed:
>
> $ lintian-brush --version
> lintian-brush 0.145
>
> $ lintian-brush --allow-reformatting --uncertain --yolo --modern
>
> $ git show
> commit a0a2bf5d6972348114b6d6d489619353c539bd74 (HEAD -> dev-otto)
> Add missing dependency on lsb-base.
>
> Changes-By: lintian-brush
> Fixes: lintian: init.d-script-needs-depends-on-lsb-base
> See-also: https://lintian.debian.org/tags/init.d-script-needs-depends-on-lsb-base.html
> diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
> index 80edd7be401..240d74914d3 100644
> --- a/debian/control
> +++ b/debian/control
> @@ -454,7 +454,8 @@ Depends: galera-4 (>= 26.4),
> - ${shlibs:Depends}
> + ${shlibs:Depends},
> + lsb-base
FWIW this is a known issue (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=946398),
but this fixer is only enabled if you specify --uncertain/--yolo, which specifically
enables changes that might not be correct.
> I have only ever found two bugs in lintian-brush, otherwise it works
> perfectly. I wish those who drive changes to Lintian rules would take
> one extra step and also collaborate with lintian-brush to automate
> fixing the issues instead of relying on all human maintainers to read
> Lintian reports and address them manually.
Thanks, that's great to hear!
The current model actually works quite well from the perspective of lintian-brush: lintian
does the hard work to identify and classify issues and because of its archive-wide
run also shows how many packages are affected.
That makes it much easier to determine what fixers to write. If you
run "make next" in lintian-brush, it will list all lintian tags that don't have a
lintian-brush fixer yet, sorted by number of occurances in the archive.
That said, suggestions for fixers / contributions to lintian-brush are very welcome.
https://salsa.debian.org/jelmer/lintian-brush/-/blob/master/doc/fixer-writing-guide.rst
provides a guide on how to write new fixers.
Cheers,
Jelmer
Reply to: