Bug#916735: lintian: appstream-metadata-missing-modalias-provide should be info, not warn

[Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>]

On December 19, 2018 7:18:42 AM UTC, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 01:00:43 +0100 Chris Lamb wrote:
>
>> Nobody is doubting the value here, one just has to square that with
>> the idea that Lintian being too pedantic, noisy or making the wrong
>> priority choices is bad for effectiveness of tool in its entirity. :)
>
>There are only 50 packages affected by this tag, is it really that big
>of a problem for it to be at warning level?
>
>https://lintian.debian.org/tags/appstream-metadata-missing-modalias-provide.html
>
>Downgrading it to info level means that almost no-one will know about
>it, so you might as well just delete the tag instead.
>
>Looking at the package list there are only a few packages where the tag
>might not apply (like zfsutils-linux) and some of the overrides are
>definitely bogus.
>
>The package that Scott maintains that is affected by this tag
>(libnitrokey-common) contains udev rules for a specific set of USB
>devices, so it or another package (like nitrokey-app) definitely needs
>to have the modalias metadata declared so that users can easily find
>software for the Nitrokey and other devices when they plug them in.

I'm not arguing it's a bad idea to have the check, but personally, I get tired of looking at it.  If this is important, get it in Policy as a should and then I think warning would be appropriate.

Why don't I just fix it?  I read the referenced material on what needs doing and concluded I don't have the spare mental cycles to learn all about this for one package.

It'd be much more efficient for someone who both understands what needs doing and cares to run through the affected packages and submit patches.

In the meantime, I think info is the right level.

Scott K