Re: RFS: ampache (updated package)
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Hi Manoj,
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> I find that experimental and pedantic add far too much
>>> irrelevant chatter, and that it tends to mask the problems one should
>>> actually fix.
>> Could you please elaborate a bit more? I'd like to know how I can improve
>> lintian so that it is more useful for others.
> ,----[ Manual page lintian(1) ]
> | --pedantic
> | Display pedantic ("P:") tags as well. They are normally
> | suppressed.
> | Pedantic tags are Lintian at its most pickiest and include
> | checks for particular Debian packaging styles, checks that are
> | very frequently wrong, and checks that many people disagree
> | with. Expect false positives and Lintian tags that you don't
> | consider useful if you use this option. Adding overrides for
> | pedantic tags is probably not worth the effort.
> Pretty much covers it, neh?
> ,----[ http://lintian.debian.org/manual/ch2.html#s2.3 ]
> | Experimental:
> | This means that the code that generates this message is not as well
> | tested as the rest of Lintian, and might still give surprising
> | results. Feel free to ignore Experimental messages that do not seem to
> | make sense, though of course bug reports are always welcomed.
Well, experimental checks are not to be considered "irrelevant chatter",
hence my question.
The current experimental checks are:
It is based on the output of strings(1) so it can't tell for sure whether a
string is actually displayed or it is just a symbol or something else, or
whether it is really an error or not (although it is pretty accurate in
Erm, IIRC this one should no longer be marked as experimental ever since
lenny was released.
PEAR modules are a bit tricky to detect properly without making it too
specific, in which case the check itself wouldn't be of much use.
There's no way for lintian to tell whether the usage of exit or _exit is
correct at all in the shared library, and it is based only by looking at
> Now, people experienced in packaging stuff for Debian ought to
> be looking at pedantic and experimental tags and giving feedback to
> Lintian, to improve it (I certainly do). But I only look at
> experimental and pedantic tags when I want to see f I want to give
> feedback to Lintian, not as a package check. As a package check it is
> very inefficient, and definitely not what I would recommend to a
I would personally recommend checking pedantic tags here in mentors, it is a
great way to introduce people to best practises. If anyone refuses to make
the change suggested by lintian elaborating a bit more why could be a good
exercise as well.
As a reference, the current pedantic checks are:
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net