Re: RFS: ampache (updated package)
On Wed, Oct 21 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hi Manoj,
>
> 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?
>>
>> Also:
>>
>> ,----[ 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:
> Tag: spelling-error-in-binary
> Severity: normal
> Certainty: wild-guess
>
> 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
> most cases).
Such has not been my experience. It keep blathering about how
the suport (su port) needs to be called support, which, in the 8 (count
it: eight) times it occurs in my packages is rubbish.
> Tag: template-uses-unsplit-choices
> Severity: normal
> Certainty: possible
>
> Erm, IIRC this one should no longer be marked as experimental ever since
> lenny was released.
So, this is a bug in lintian, really, and one should not need
experimental errors to see this.
> Tag: embedded-pear-module
> Severity: normal
> Certainty: possible
>
> 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.
So, lots of false positives?
> Tag: shlib-calls-exit
> Severity: wishlist
> Certainty: possible
>
> 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 the symbols.
Again a code I have to ignore.
> 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.
I have found pedantic flags often not to be good practices, but
practices that various lintian authors have liked. And thus one should
only be exposed to them when one has the judgment to decide whether or
not it is an idiosyncracy or good practice.
manoj
--
If you always postpone pleasure you will never have it. Quit work and
play for once!
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: