On Wed, 2018-12-19 at 07:28 +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote: > 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. In general I think it is perfectly acceptable to ignore lintian and other QA tools when one does not have the time or energy to make the changes that they are suggesting. I also think it is reasonable to override lintian for something you don't have time or energy for and don't want to see the suggestion any more. In the this case, I think that users just installing libnitrokey-common won't get anything useful, so a lintian override is appropriate here since it cannot know that a binary package (nitrokey-app) from a different source package (nitrokey-app) is the place to add the modalias metadata. nitrokey-app already has an AppStream file, but it doesn't have the modalias metadata. So I think that libnitrokey-dev needs to expose modalias metadata for nitrokey-app to export. > 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. I don't think I have the requisite time and understanding to do this, hopefully Petter will be interested to work on this but in general I think it will be best for individual upstreams to work on this since they know their software best and how to best expose which info. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part