Bug#491296: lintian: 1.24.2 makes a *lot* of noise
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 09:47:14 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > $ lintian ../xorg-server_1.4.2-2_i386.changes |wc -l
> > 1438
>
> A fair chunk of that with 1.4.2-1 at least is:
>
> E: xserver-xorg-core: unstripped-binary-or-object ./usr/lib/xorg/modules/extensions/libGLcore.so
>
There are 35 of those.
> Is Lintian wrong about this? Do those files need to be left unstripped
> for some reason?
No. This comes from stripping rules (strip --strip-debug
--remove-section=.note --remove-section=.comment) that I think come from
the days of the old xfree86 custom loader, where we couldn't just strip
the modules without also making them unusable. I've fixed that in the
experimental branch a while ago.
> > This is just not bearable. I get one warning for every Makefile.in in
> > the package (see #471263),
>
> I believe this is a bug in the package which you should fix and Lintian is
> correct. (This is particularly the case with the 3.0 format, where those
> changes will end up as a monster patch combined with any other changes
> made directly in the package.)
>
> I'll be more explicit about that now and tag 471263 as wontfix; there are
> some edge cases for which we may change Lintian's behavior, but the basic
> point of not having the autotools regeneration diff outside the patch
> system is a place where I don't think Lintian should change.
>
I disagree with this, but that's not really the point. If lintian wants
to complain that there are changes outside debian/, then it can do it
once. Doing it once for every modified file doesn't bring anything IMO.
If I want to know which files are modified I can lsdiff foo.diff.gz
myself.
> > and one for every line deemed too long in debian/copyright for every
> > binary package. Please turn the noise down, at least by default.
>
> Why don't you just rewrap the license that you currently have wrapped at
> 90 columns?
>
> I may be missing something, but it really is looking like you're
> complaining that Lintian is noisy when run on a buggy package, rather than
> just fixing the (minor) bugs that it's detecting.
>
I don't think it's reasonable to output 1000 warnings about this. I
wouldn't complain if it was one per package instead of once per line per
package.
Cheers,
Julien
Reply to: