Re: Question about watch-file
Patrick Schoenfeld <schoenfeld@in-medias-res.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 11:23:24PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Right. And the lintian message suggests exactly what I'm
> > suggesting: a watch file that documents exactly why 'uscan' can't
> > yet do its work for this particular package.
>
> Seems wrong to me. The lintian text states that a package which is
> "(...) not maintained upstream (...)" may add a commented watch file
> "(...) containing only comments to document this." In my opinion the
> wording is very clear and aims at packages who are not maintained
> upstream.
Your reading is correct; thank you for drawing my attention to this. I
come to a different conclusion, though, which I'll explain below.
> Meaning that a watch file is useless, because it will never report
> new upstream versions. But a comment is useful, because everyone who
> wants to do something with the package can read from it that
> upstream is dead.
You're correct that the 'debian-watch-file-is-missing' description
suggests that a comments-only watch file is appropriate when upstream
is inactive. I think this is only one possible case where it's
reasonable to do so, though.
My suggestion is that comments in the watch file are appropriate to
document *any* reason why the package maintainer is currently unable
to provide suitable information for 'uscan'.
> Despite that I'm not sure if the watch file is the proper place for
> such a note this has sureley an entitlement, and the watch file
> can't be fixed anyway, so a warning is inappropriate.
I don't understand what you're saying in this sentence.
> > Indeed. Documenting them explicitly is what I'm suggesting,
> > instead of an override to silence a message.
>
> Well, the problem with your solution is that you silence an
> indicator for a problem anyway. Someone who looks at the lintian
> status of the package can do this from the outside and can decide to
> act upon.
I don't think lintian should be providing such an indication "from the
outside"; that's more appropriate for the DEHS checker.
I think the description of 'debian-watch-file-is-missing' should be
changed to ask the package maintainer to add a watch file regardless:
either with functional settings for 'uscan', or with comments
explaining why this can't currently be done.
> If you add a comment in a watch file then you have a comment in a
> hidden place for a lot of people who could potential fix the
> problem. They would need to look *into* that specific package, which
> is unlikely.
DEHS already clearly shows packages for which the upstream version
can't be checked; e.g. see
<URL:http://dehs.alioth.debian.org/maintainer.php?name=lojban-common>.
> No, not for the current maintainer, thats true. But it *is* a
> barrier for everybody who wants to track specific problems from the
> outside, e.g. by looking at lintian.d.o.
My argument is that lintian, which is a tool suitable for running
frequently by the package maintainer, should not nag the developer for
such a common situation. Adding a lintian override is inappropriate if
the situation is not exceptional, and especially not if the problem
can be documented in a better way.
Those who want to find problems like "is the package healthy?" should
be looking at the DEHS reports, which show this status clearly without
involvement by lintian. They will then know that 'uscan' had some
problem, and can examine the watch file, where they'll see whatever
the package maintainer has written about the situation. No need to get
lintian involved.
--
\ “Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than |
`\ it ceases to be serious when people laugh.” —George Bernard Shaw |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: