Bug#612610: lintian: should suggest switching to 3.0 (quilt)
On 29/03/13 at 01:28 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not sure we can in general promote the use of 3.0 (quilt) over 1.0
> via Lintian at the moment[1].
>
> Though I noticed that people are writing their own tools to extract
> things like "what source format is used" or "what build systems are
> used". With #359059 being fixed in 2.5.12, perhaps it is worth for us
> to consider if Lintian could be used for more than "mere" flaw
> reporting. Like adding a new "kind" of tag that is not a "flaw" but
> simply a "property" of the package[2].
>
> While it would not directly solve your/Luacs's request for promoting a
> switch to 3.0 (quilt), it would still report which source formats are
> used (and would be importable into UDD). It is also quite possible that
> some of the metrics on mentors.d.n could be replaced by this new
> "property" tag[3].
>
> ~Niels
>
> [1] Basically it is the same reasons as mentioned in #702671.
>
> [2] Originally I considered using "informational tag" here, but I
> figured it would be confused with "I" tags.
>
> [3] I doubt the current ones will be replaced, but one can hope that
> future metrics would be written as such a tag.
Hi,
Actually, I have two motivations for that:
1) be able to easily track the number of "affected" packages. But actually, I
solve that using another solution (custom script + snapshot.d.o, see
http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=751). [ it just occurred to me that
using lintian to do that analysis would have been possible (esp. with
Property tags) and quite nice. ]
2) push for "archive renovation/standardisation" on good practices.
As I wrote in https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2013/03/msg00193.html:
> Discouraging the use of some development practices is part of that.
> There are good reasons for not using any of dh or cdbs, not using 3.0
> (quilt), so I don't think that we should force that in policy, and make
> that RC bugs.
> But I think that we should discuss adding lintian warning or errors for:
> - packages using 1.0 format and having files modified directly
> => should move to 3.0 (quilt)
> - packages using 1.0 format and simple-patchsys, quilt, or dpatch
> => should move to 3.0 (quilt)
> - packages using debhelper directly (not dh or cdbs)
> => should move to dh
> [ there are good reasons in some cases for doing some of the above.
> Adding lintian override in those cases would be totally OK, and also
> a good way to identify current limitations in 3.0 (quilt) or dh. ]
>
> I would hope that the increasing visibility brought by lintian
> warnings/errors, and as well as the advertised project consensus that
> such practices are discouraged, would help us get rid of such practices.
Now, as was suggested in #702671, there should be prior discussion on -devel@
about that. I'll raise the topic after the DPL election (it might sound like a
political move if I did it now) -- unless someone beats me with it.
Lucas
Reply to: