Russ Allbery: > Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> writes: > >> For those not on IRC: I think dbgsym should warrant as little attention >> at package build time from the average maintainers as entirely possible. >> Having people override tags in a package they did not build directly >> seems like a waste of their time. (FTR, not saying that every lintian >> tag in a dbgsym should be silenced in Lintian. We could certainly want >> to fix debhelper in some cases) > > I've never been very happy with how Lintian reported this specific check, > since it emits it for every binary package as a binary metadata field > check. It would be nicer if it were a source package check so that it > would only be emitted once per source package, but that would require > somewhat more sophistication to ensure that each binary package gets an > appropriate Homepage control field if people are doing complicated things > with putting this field into separate binary package stanzas instead of > just in the source package stanza. > Indeed. Fortunately, most people have added the Homepage field to the source package[1]. Perhaps we should just change the "no-homepage-field" tag to only look at the source package (and retain "homepage-in-binary-package" to help people who misplace the field)? Thanks, ~Niels [1] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/homepage-in-binary-package.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature