Bug#710086: lintian: reports package-contains-ancient-file where this is not an error
On 2013-05-28 09:38, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Package: lintian Version: 2.5.10.5 Severity: normal Tags: upstream
> X-Debugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
>
> Dear Lintian maintainers,
>
Hi,
Thanks for your report.
> I am currently working on the (re-)packaging of the "IRAF"
> astronomical package [1]. This is a huge package with old roots --
> the history goes back to 1981.
>
> Therefore, the package contains a number of files which are quite
> old -- some help files, source examples, documentation etc. date
> back to 1983. This leads to the Lintian *error* shown in the
> subject. The Lintian explanation even warns "Your package will be
> rejected by the Debian archive scripts if it contains a file with
> such a timestamp".
>
I believe this used to be enforced by dak in the old days and the
Lintian check was just there to inform people of this before they
uploaded. If I understand [3] correctly that now the check has been
outsourced to Lintian.
> The Debian Policy does not forbid to use old timestaps; in contrast
> it encourages to keep them:
>
> | 4.7 Time Stamps | Maintainers should preserve the modification
> times of the upstream | source files in a package, as far as is
> reasonably possible.
>
> In the case of IRAF, it is reasonable to keep the timestamps since
> the file age is an indicator to evaluate the contained information
> for the user.
>
> [...]
>
Seems reasonable.
> Since this is a lintian error, I cannot just overwrite it.
That is a misunderstanding I would like to clear up. You can override
lintian errors (i.e. E tags) in general. It just so happens that our
default vendor profile (which is the FTP masters auto-reject tags)
will not allow that particular tag to be overridden. The
"letter-code" for a given tag is unrelated to whether or not the tag
can be overridden (e.g. it is possible for a "pedantic" tag to be
marked as "non-overridable" - whether somebody uses that "feature" is
a different matter).
> In a discussion in debian-mentors [2], I was pointed to bug #218304
> which gives an explanation why this check is in Lintian. However,
> an earliest allowed date of 1984 is far too strong for old
> packages, and I would ask to set it (as the bug suggests) to
> something like 1971, to downgrade it to a warning, or to remove it
> completely.
>
As mentioned, the FTP masters can choose to make it a "non-fatal"
auto-reject, in which case you can override the tag[4]. That would
immediately solve this problem by allowing you to override the tag.
We can also change the rules for the tag; I don't mind doing that
either. But as we re-implemented a dak check we did not choose the
original date, so I am hesitant to change the cut-off date without the
FTP masters confirming it.
> Best regards
>
> Ole
>
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/690531 [2]
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2013/05/msg00298.html
>
>
[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2013/05/msg00306.html
[4] Note that your local installed version of Lintian uses a static
copy of the list of auto-reject tags, so your local installed version
of Lintian will ignore your override even if dak does not.
Reply to: