Bug#995492: lintian: Broken --fails-on=none as default never got reverted
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo
Control: severity -1 important
Hi Guillem,
I'm trying to catch up with that chaos which is in lintian's current
state.
Guillem Jover wrote:
> So the problematic --fail-on default change never got actually reverted
> as the patch applied in commit 3758bfafd5dd742c327f2312dac8e3a71b1f036e
> omitted the relevant part that would make it work. :(
Can you please elaborate what exactly is the bug? You refer to
something being problematic without explaining what actually is
problematic.
You refer to 3758bfafd5dd742c327f2312dac8e3a71b1f036e and
https://bugs.debian.org/962158 which has been closed about 2 years and
ca. 35 Lintian releases ago. That thread in #962158 is quite long and
difficult to grasp.
> None of the previous arguments against the default change brought up
> in #962158 have stopped being relevant (also contrary to the commit
> message…). Worse, this sneaked in what has shipped now in a stable
> Debian release. :( So any errors found in CI systems and through other
> tooling has been silently ignored since then. :/
This doesn't really makes the issue easier to understand. I don't ask
for a patch, but at least for a list of defects what is wrong where
and probably why.
So far I got that there is an issue with the exit codes having changed
to be somewhat less helpful for automatic usage. (When did it change
and how? Do you happen to know a commit id? What condition should in
your opinion cause which exit code?)
> Only noticed now due to #994414, a great excuse to now keep the broken
> behavior I guess.
So this bug report actually should no more be fixed?!?
> (Where the --help output still does not match…)
So --help seems outdated. At which line or option exactly and what
should it say instead?
Downgrading to import for now as I can't really fix something which is
totally unclear, both, the how and the why.
P.S.: Sorry if you explained that in the past, but the whole situation
in general and with this issue in specific is quite tangled, so that
I'd really appreciate a summary to get an idea what this bug report
exactly is about.
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: