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.)
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature