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

Re: Bug#1014537: unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error



Hi,

> I am looking at making `debian/foo` an error by default in debhelper compat
> 15 (triggering a warning from compat 14).

Uargh, yet another bad decision which makes one want to no more using
debhelper. :-(

> > > This kind of packaging, with some packaging files under debian/ having an
> > > associated binary package name and some not, is an antipattern.
> > 
> > +1

-1

> > (I also don't like packaging files without binary package name for
> > single-binary source package, but that's just a matter of taste.)

Exactly. I find it a very annoying nuisance to have to do that for
single binary packages.

> These have historically applied to all packages and it does not seem useful
> to force everyone to maintain N copies of {changelog,copyright,...}.

It also would probably violate the policy with regards to source packages.

> I have CC'ed lintian + lintian-brush on CC and cloned bugs for them. Having
> a lintian tag for them will enable the Janitor to help with the migration,
> so I agree we should have a lintian tag for this.

*sigh*

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE


Reply to: