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

Bug#933109: package-supports-alternative-init-but-no-init.d-script produces too many false positives



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


Reply to: