[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#896696: marked as done (lintian: please improve tag description to explain that python 2 modules are only questioned on 1st upload)

Your message dated Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:12:40 +0000
with message-id <20180423181239.y3zum2kp6bj42gg3@layer-acht.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#896696: lintian: please improve tag description to explain that python 2 modules are only questioned on 1st upload
has caused the Debian Bug report #896696,
regarding lintian: please improve tag description to explain that python 2 modules are only questioned on 1st upload
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
896696: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896696
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
package: lintian
severity: wishlist
x-debbugs-cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 06:33:20PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> For example, I think Holger is interpreting this particular tag as
> "this source package is shipping a Python 2.x" module. This is not
> the case. 
> 
> Rather, Lintian detects that this is the *initial* upload of the
> source package and, if so, asks the maintainer just to double-check
> that there is any requirement for it.
> 
> If there is such a need, the maintainer just needs to add a short,
> quick justification in the initial changelog entry and Lintian will
> then be silent on the matter.
> 
> It is thus not asking maintainers to drop Python 2 support…

Then the lintian message should be appended to say this only happens on
the first upload.

Thanks.

> As there can only be one initial upload by definition, adding an
> override here is not only a little silly given that it will trigger
> an "unused override" warning on the next upload, it can simply be
> avoided in the changelog entry as previously discussed, which 
> implicitly serves as some documentation too.

Maybe it's also worth pointing this out.

> (This talk of overrides was why I believe Holger is accidentally
> confusing the tag.)
 
Yes. And because the tag description needs improving. ;)


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 07:05:41PM +0100, Chris Lamb  wrote:
> It does, no? The current text is:

ah, thanks for clarifying. I indeed filed the bug only by judging what
was said and quoted on -devel@. Sorry for the noise!


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: