Re: Plans for squeeze
Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I'm not sure about this one, honestly. I think there's something to be
>> said about the simplicity of this mapping, and we do make the
>> additional information available in the long description. But maybe I
>> just don't like change. :) I think getting more input on this would
>> be good, though.
> My concern is that the EWI code doesn't tell much, and a lot of people
> ignore I tags just because they think they are not that important;
> although most indicate some sort of bugs in the package.
Well, I think people ignore I tags because they're not displayed by
default, and they're not displayed by default because they're minor or
wishlist bugs. I don't think the lack of information has anywhere near as
much effect as not displaying them by default, which is intentional. Even
if we changed the display format, I don't think we'd show them by default,
at least without a lot of broader input.
This is the standard dance around trying to get people to fix problems
without being so picky that they just ignore Lintian altogether.
>> I thought I responded to your patch with the specific details of what
>> else needs to be done, and I hadn't seen a further response after that.
>> Maybe Gmane dropped the message for some reason? The main change,
>> IIRC, is that the package list format needs to be changed to include
>> the archive area so that we can display that information on the
>> lintian.d.o web pages.
>
> If that was the problem, I think I already addressed those in the last
> patch I sent to the BTS[1]; you later sent [2] where you removed the
> 'patch' tag.
>
> [1]http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=516530#57
> [2]http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=59;bug=516530
Oh, I owed you another reply. Sorry, didn't realize that.
Looking at the last patch, though, I still don't see any sign of this
change to the package list format. The only data being included is still
just:
+ print OUT join(';',
+ $pkg,
+ $data->{'version'},
+ $data->{'source'},
+ $data->{'source-version'},
+ $deb_file,
+ $timestamp,
+ ),"\n";
and:
+ print OUT join(';',
+ $pkg,
+ $data->{'version'},
+ $data->{'maintainer'},
+ $data->{'uploaders'} || '',
+ $data->{'architecture'},
+ $data->{'standards-version'},
+ $data->{'binary'},
+ $data->{'files'},
+ $dsc_file,
+ $timestamp,
+ ),"\n";
which doesn't include the archive area. Am I missing something?
> Forgot to mention: I think the easiest way, for now, to support
> multi-arch lintian labs would be by generating a lintian.log for each
> architecture being tested. The rationale is that neither the internal
> nor external (non-lintian) infrastructures support multi-arch output
> (they all use EWI code which, again, lacks important information).
Right, the output format doesn't include the architecture of the package.
I think that generating multiple lintian.log files is the right thing to
do anyway, since you don't actually want to display the merger of them
all. You want to do duplicate suppression first, and if you're going to
do duplicate suppression anyway, it's just as easy to do that from
multiple logs.
>> Yeah, we should figure out what to do with that stuff. I don't know if
>> debcheck in particular has anything to do with the version that's being
>> run across the archive or whether it should.
> AFAIK debcheck (qa.d.o stuff) != depcheck; and debcheck is written in
> python and lives under qa's svn repository.
In that case, is there any reason not to just delete depcheck? Last time
I looked at it, it was extremely incomplete and would require a lot of
work to do something useful.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: