On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 05:49:28PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
I agree that it's wrong. It's also confusing beacuse it doesn't give any actual explanation that would help someone understand why the author of this warning thinks it would have been incorrect.
Yes, the description makes no sense because the problem doesn't exist. But this would only matter if it still only applied to Go packages. Right now it doesn't matter IMO what does the description say.
a bit of spelunking in the lintian repo suggests that this check was added in response to https://bugs.debian.org/891072
(which I linked in the original bug report)
(perhaps withinsufficient reasoning)
I know nothing about Go so I assume the reasoning made sense in that context, in the submitted patch. But, as I said in the original bug report, first the tag name was corrupted when the patch was applied and later the logic was corrupted by removing the Go check in 1edef669729b04bc67d480b81568dfa8e5e3ae0f.
(also the Go specifics were removed from the title of this bug report, making it more vague and, at least to me, suggesting that for many non-Go packages this lintian tag is output correctly, but meh)
-- WBR, wRAR
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature