Re: Review of new lintian tag
On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Justin B Rye <justin.byam.rye@gmail.com> wrote:
> bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>> Sorry for the format, it is easier to generate as patch file.
>
> And it's easier to review it by saying "95%, just needs minor tweaks",
> but instead:
>
>> diff --git a/checks/binaries.desc b/checks/binaries.desc
> [...]
>> +Tag: source-contains-prebuilt-sphinx-documentation
>> +Severity: pedantic
>> +Certainty: possible
>> +Info: The source tarball contains a prebuilt sphinx documentation.
>> + They are usually left by mistake when generating the tarball by not
>> + cleaning the source directory first. You may want to report this as
>> + an upstream bug, in case there is no sign that this was intended.
>> + .
>> + It is preferable to rebuilt documentation directly from source.
>> +
>
> I don't know anything much about sphinx, but "documentation" is
> usually a non-count noun, and therefore doesn't take an indefinite
> article ("a"). It doesn't count as plural ("they") either.
>
> (And now I've looked it up I gather "Sphinx" should be capitalised.
> Docs generated by a sphinx sound risky, given that the diet of the
> sphinx was people who couldn't see through its riddles.)
>
> Also, you don't generate the tarball by not cleaning the directory;
> this is an "if", not an "in case"; and the infinitive is "rebuild".
>
> Info: The source tarball contains prebuilt Sphinx documentation.
> This is usually left by mistake when generating the tarball without
> first cleaning the source directory. You may want to report this as
> an upstream bug, if there is no sign that this was intended.
> .
> It is preferable to rebuild documentation directly from source.
Done
>> +Tag: uses-deprecated-compression-for-data-tarball
>> +Severity: important
>> +Certainty: certain
>> +Info: The data portion of this binary package uses a deprecated compression
>> + format. Creating such binary packages is supported by dpkg-deb for now,
>> + although a warning is emitted for lzma since dpkg 1.16.4 and for bzip2
>> + since dpkg 1.17.7, but will eventually be disallowed, although extraction
>> + will keep being supported for the foreseeable future.
>
> Maybe this would work better in reverse:
>
> Info: The data portion of this binary package uses a deprecated compression
> format. Although dpkg will support extracting such binary packages for
> the foreseeable future, creating them will eventually be disallowed. A
> warning is emitted for lzma since dpkg 1.16.4, and for bzip2 since dpkg
> 1.17.7.
Better yes
>> + .
>> + For lzma, xz is the direct replacement. For bzip2 either gzip or xz can
>> + be used as a substitute, depending on the wanted properties, gzip for
>> + maximum compatibility and speed, and xz for maximum compression ratio.
>
> Just a tiny punctuation nitpick:
>
> [...]
> be used as a substitute, depending on the wanted properties: gzip for
> [...]
Done
>> @@ -1497,6 +1499,19 @@ Info: The arch all pkg-config file contains a reference to a multi-arch path.
>> Another likely cause is using debhelper 9 or newer (thus enabling
>> multi-arch paths by default) on a package without multi-arch support.
>> The usual cure in this case is to update it for multi-arch.
>> + .
>> + Last but not least, this file could contains a reference to a cross
>> + architecture. Like for instance a x86_64-linux-gnu pkg-config file
>> + referencing a i386-linux-gnu file. In this case the usual cure is to
>> + fix this path.
>
> Victory already spotted s/contain/contains/; I would also advise
> turning the "Like" part into a subclause instead of a freestanding
> sentence fragment.
>
> Last but not least, this file could contain a reference to a cross
> architecture (like for instance a x86_64-linux-gnu pkg-config file
> referencing a i386-linux-gnu file). In this case the usual cure is to
> fix this path.
Done
>> +
>> +Tag: pkg-config-bad-directive
>> +Severity: serious
>> +Certainty: possible
>> +Info: The pkg-config file contains a wrong directive.
>> + .
>> + The following file include a wrong directive. This could lead to
>> + FTBFS or leak private compile flags to another package.
>
> The following file includes [...]
>
>> +Tag: init.d-script-depends-on-all-virtual-facility
>> +Severity: serious
>> +Certainty: possible
>> +Info: The given init script declares a dependency on $all
>> + virtual facility.
>> + .
>> + This virtual facility is reserved to local script.
>> + .
>> + Moreover using $all in more than one init.d script is
>> + totally broken.
>> +Ref: http://wiki.debian.org/LSBInitScripts
>
> Info: The given init script declares a dependency on the
> virtual facility "$all".
> .
> This virtual facility is reserved for local scripts.
> .
> Moreover, using $all in more than one init.d script is
> totally broken.
> Ref: https://wiki.debian.org/LSBInitScripts
done
>> +Tag: maven-plugin-in-usr-share-java
>> +Severity: normal
>> +Certainty: possible
>> +Info: A maven plugin is incorrectly installed in /usr/share/java.
>> + Maven plugin should be installed in /usr/share/maven-repo
>
> Maven plugins should be installed in /usr/share/maven-repo.
Done
>> @@ -102,7 +108,7 @@ Info: The package contains a Jar file with Java class files compiled for an
>> for a newer version of Java than Lintian knows about. In the latter case,
>> please file a bug against Lintian.
>> .
>> - Latest class version known by Lintian is Java7 (Major version 51).
>> + Latest class version known by Lintian is Java8 (Major version 52).
>
> The latest [...]
Done
>> @@ -36,6 +36,9 @@ Info: The md5sum listed for the file does not match the actual file
>> Usually, this error occurs during the package build process, if the
>> <tt>debian/tmp/</tt> directory is touched after <tt>dh_md5sums</tt>
>> is run.
>> + .
>> + Font files regenerated at post-install time by t1c2pfb
>> + should be overriden.
> ^
> Two "D"s in "overridden". It's also conceivable that you mean its
> near-synonym "overwritten".
Done
> --
> JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
> sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Thank you
Bastien
Reply to: