Re: [PATCH] Nuke a few easily Lintian warnings
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 13:04 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 07:41 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > I happened to notice on packages.qa.debian.org that the kernel packages
> > have 250 lintian warnings, of which the vast majority come from just a
> > few easy to fix issues.
> >
> > The following patch address the worst (or rather, most numerous) of the
> > warnings.
> >
> > debhelper-but-no-misc-depends
> >
> > By far the majority of the warnings. Resolved by adding the
> > requisite ${Depends:misc} to all binary packages. The variable
> > ends up empty except for the linux-base package.
> >
> > dbg-package-missing-depends
> >
> > Add dependency on the corresponding linux-image package to each
> > -dbg package. It's possible this is not appropriate for a kernel
> > -dbg in which case I could make it an override instead.
>
> I'm not sure whether this is appropriate. The kernel image may be
> installed externally. Also, the debug packages contain images with
> debug information, not just the debug information.
OK, I was wavering between the two but I now think an override would be
more appropriate.
>
> > empty-binary-package
> >
> > Resolved by adding the word virtual to the relevant package
> > descriptions.
>
> I prefer 'metapackage'. And I think that should go in the short
> description (as in the packages generated by linux-latest-2.6).
OK, will do.
> > After this patch it looks from
> > http://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/debian-kernel@lists.debian.org.html
> > like the remaining Lintian warnings would be (I only considered the
> > linux-2.6 source package):
> >
> > linux-base - no-debconf-config
> > (should be linux-base.config not linux-base.postinst?)
>
> We cannot make this a config script because it requires external tools
> just to work out whether it should ask any questions, and a config
> script may be run before the package dependencies are satisfied. This
> warning should be overridden.
Will do.
>
> > linux-doc-2.6.32 - extra-license-file
> > linux-image-*-FLAVOUR - postrm-does-not-purge-debconf
> > (probably a false positive related to postrm being in Perl?)
>
> I think this one may be real.
The lintian check has a comment which implies that handling postrm in
Perl is missing.
The postrm has a call to purge() in it which I assumed was a debconf
purge.
>
> > linux-manual-2.6.32 - manpage-has-errors-from-man
> > (lots of these and they all look to be the same class of error)
>
> It's a bug in docbook-xsl, reported as #569828.
Good to know.
> > out-of-date-standards-version
> >
> > Shall I apply? I guess if so then something similar ought to go into
> > trunk (I was looking at the sid branch)
> [...]
>
> There are a load of changes that should be merged to trunk, which I can
> do after this.
Bastian has asked me to work against trunk first so I guess the merge
needs to go both ways?
--
Ian Campbell
Current Noise: Katatonia - Omerta
LOAD "LINUX",8,1
-- Topic on #LinuxGER
Reply to: