On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:56:23 -0300 "Chris Lamb" <lamby@debian.org> wrote: [...] > > Hi Michael, > > > The underlying issue is still that this test is currently way too > > primitive and produces too many false positives to be actually useful. > > In #931889 I already listed some cases, where those false-positives are > > triggered. > > Nod, and I ACK there is still further discussion to be had in > this area. > > As I plan to release a new version of Lintian very soon (which will > close the "pending" #931889...) let us keep this one (ie. #933109) > open so this issue does not get lost. Hello Chris, is there any progress on this issue with false positives? I still get a [complaint] from Lintian on apt-listbugs about missing init.d scripts. As I have [previously] said, this Lintian check should try hard to be more accurate: for instance, it should look whether there is a corresponding timer unit along with the service unit. If this is the case, it should not emit any complaint at all! [complaint]: <https://lintian.debian.org/full/invernomuto@paranoici.org.html#apt-listbugs> [previously]: <https://bugs.debian.org/931889#10> Please improve this check soon: I would rather avoid having to introduce a Lintian override into my package... Thanks for your time and for the great job that Lintian does in order to improve the quality of Debian packages! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpeWeg5hfChE.pgp
Description: PGP signature