Re: [SCM] Debian package checker branch, master, updated. 2.5.0-rc1-9-gb88de18
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2011-03-13 23:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Niels Thykier" <niels@thykier.net> writes:
>
>> The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
>> commit b88de18c980e9488ffbab7b719874bfd5f354eb6
>> Author: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
>> Date: Sun Mar 13 09:23:31 2011 +0100
>
>> Ignore missing versioned deps for debhelper <= 7
>>
>> debhelper 7 is in all supported releases of Debian, so there
>> is no point in warning about a missing versioned depends for
>> anything less than that.
>
> We've intentionally not done this because debhelper says to always add the
> versioned dependency. See the advice in the debhelper man page:
>
Okay, I missed that, sorry about that.
> Once your package uses debhelper to build, be sure to add debhelper to
> your Build-Depends line in debian/control. You should build-depend on a
> version of debhelper equal to (or greater than) the debhelper
> compatibility level your package uses. So if your package used
> compatibility level 7:
>
> Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 7)
>
> There's an existing wontfix bug about this with further discussion, I
> think.
>
Are you referring to #539760 ? That has just been tagged wontfix without
any reason given from any Lintian maintainer as far as I can tell. The
only thing I see is a wontfix from you with no explanation and a retitle
from Adam to (presumably) improve the readability/sorting of the BTS.
To quote Jonas (from #539760):
"""
[...] That could apply to *any* package, not just debhelper. [...]
"""
Yet, we have removed versioned nagging for quilt for versions in Squeeze
in 2.5.0~rc1
"""
* checks/rules:
+ [RG] Drop some checks for versioned dependencies that can now be
satisfied in stable (squeeze). Thanks, Cyril Brulebois.
"""
According to lintian.d.o we have about 354 (355 with overrides) emitted
package-lacks-versioned-build-depends-on-debhelper. Of these, the
following packages have (according to l.d.o) a compat of 7 or higher[1].
37 packages have a compat 7 or higher without B-Ding on debhelper with
a version. Of these only 2 of them have compat 8 which is a potential
problem (and one of these are overriden). Current this tag has a
accuracy of less than 1% of possible issues (and the two actual matches
are quite possibly just pre-testers of compat 8 that has not been
rechecked).
So what are the pros of keeping emitting tags for those 99% of the
cases? And why only for debhelper and not all packages (e.g. we removed
versioned nagging for packages satisfied in Squeeze in 2.5.0~rc1)?
If there is a good reason for it, I will gladly revert that and the
related test commit. However currently I do not see the argument for
reverting these commits.
~Niels
[1] Manually counted from
http://lintian.debian.org/tags/package-lacks-versioned-build-depends-on-debhelper.html
diploma
emacs23-non-dfsg
eukleides
floatbg
freetds
gkrellmitime
gst-plugins-good0.10
jigdo
libcontextual-return-perl (8 - overriden)
libdbd-informix-perl
libidl
libotr
libpdf-create-perl (8)
libprintsys
localization-config
makepatch
manpages-es-extra
mgdiff
mh-e
nullidentd
planner-el
portslave
rdup
siproxd
snmpkit
synaesthesia
thp
trac-customfieldadmin
trac-mastertickets
trac-wikiprint
trac-wysiwyg
trac-xmlrpc
uqm-content
wmbubble
wmcdplay
wzip
xdrawchem
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=xH29
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: