Bug#930679: Please add overridable tag for not using dh sequencer

[Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>]

Mattia Rizzolo:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:05:23PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> Somewhat related, but if we introduce this mooted "package-does-not-
>> use- dh-sequencer" we need to work out what to do with:
>>
>>   https://lintian.debian.org/tags/package-does-not-use-debhelper-or-cdbs.html
>>
>> One thing we can probably all agree with is that the severity of
>> package-does-not-use-debhelper-or-cdbs should be equal to or exceed
>> the severity of package-does-not-use-dh-sequencer as one is a logical
>> subset of another.
> 
> I just reported 3 bugs (#933901, #933902, #933903) with false positives
> of that tag.  I just looked a bunch of them and couldn't find a single
> true positive, so I think that tag should be reviewed before bumping its
> severity.
> 
> I think those bugs should be squashed, reviewed, and then bumped to W.
> Only once there are very few packages with that should
> package-goes-not-use-dh-sequencer be bumped to W as well.
> (note that package-does-not-)se-debhelper-or-cdbs does not emit for
> classic-style debhelper rules files.)
> 

The tag package-does-not-use-debhelper-or-cdbs would probably benefit
from using the same logic as debian-build-system, which tries to handle
some of these cases.  As I recall the %build_systems table holds exactly
this kind of information already.

Thanks,
~Niels