Re: Review of new lintian tags
Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> Sorry if I miss some of your remarks.
It might be simpler if you just posted the files so I could give you
fixed versions (or if I learned enough git to get them myself), but
here we go again:
> +Tag: bad-intended-distibution
distribution
> +Severity: normal
> +Certainty: wild-guess
> +Experimental: yes
> +Info: The last changelog entry is intended to be uploaded
> + to a particular distribution, whereas the changelog said otherwise.
Apparently this does indeed mean (and should therefore probably say):
Info: The last changelog entry implies this version is not for release.
Instead it should specify the distribution it is to be uploaded to.
> +Tag: source-contains-prebuilt-flash-object
Jonathan's version looks good to me.
> +Tag: source-contains-prebuilt-flash-project
> +Severity: pedantic
> +Certainty: possible
> +Info: The source tarball contains a prebuilt flash project. 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.
Wait, this wasn't here the last time! It needs a rewrite parallel to
the one Jonathan gave for -prebuilt-flash-object, except giving the
full name of the file format (which I don't know offhand).
[...]
> +Tag: source-contains-prebuilt-javascript-object
Another intruder. I didn't even realise JavaScript had prebuilt
objects, so I don't know what file format name you should be
substituting in except that it should spell "JavaScript" with capital
J and S.
> +Tag: source-contains-prebuilt-python-object
> +Severity: pedantic
> +Certainty: possible
> +Info: The source tarball contains a prebuilt python object. 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.
Likewise, but talking about precompiled Python object formats.
[...]
> +Tag: license-problem-non-free-rfc
> +Severity: serious
> +Certainty: possible
> +Info: The given source file is licensed under the newer RFC
> + license.
> + .
> + The majority of IETF documents, such as RFCs, are not licensed
> + under DFSG-free terms, and should thus not be included in Debian's main.
s/Debian's main/Debian main/
[...]
> +Tag: license-problem-md5sum-non-distributable-file
> +Severity: serious
> +Certainty: certain
> +Info: The following file is not distributable even in the non-free
> + archive.
(There's extra initial whitespace there, if it matters. I'm not
trying to standardise inter-sentence spacing either.)
[...]
> +Tag: privacy-breach-generic
> +Severity: important
> +Certainty: wild-guess
> +Experimental: yes
> +Info: This package creates a potential privacy breach by fetching data
> + from an external website at runtime. Please remove these scripts or
> + external HTML resources.
I'm still not sure exactly what this is talking about, but maybe
that's because it's intended to be generic?
[...]
> -Tag: debian-rules-uses-DEB_BUILD_OPTS
> +Tag: debian-rules-should-not-use-DEB_BUILD_OPTS
(If tags are case sensitive, why do they downcase words like "rfc"?)
[...]
>
> +Tag: debian-rules-should-not-use-underscore-variable
> +Severity: normal
> +Certainty: possible
> +Ref: policy 4.9
> +Info: The rules file use the make variable $(_).
> + .
> + According to Policy 4.9, <q>invoking either of <tt>make -f debian/rules
> + <args…></tt> or <tt>./debian/rules
> + <args…></b>' must result in identical behavior.</q>
^
> + One way to inadvertently violate this policy is to use the $_ variable.
Sorry, I've noticed an error: that closing quote should be a </tt>.
And I'm not sure I was wise to convert "..." into "…".
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: