[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RfC: Moving not-pkg-perl-team-specific lintian tests from pkg-perl-tools to lintian proper



On Sat, 16 May 2015 19:30:40 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:

> gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 May 2015 21:32:29 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote:
> > > My main movation is to get the check application-not-library with the
> > > following tags into lintian:
> > > * libapp-perl-package-name
> > > * library-package-name-for-application
> > > * application-in-library-section
> > I'm seeing quite a few false positives with those checks;
> I assume that you don't include libapp-perl-package-name in that
> statement. I consider that tag to be quite precise: "Certainty:
> certain"

Right, I meant the other two.
 
> With regards to library-package-name-for-application and
> application-in-library-section, I've set "Certainty: possible" 

I'd rather rate it as "wild guess" :)

> But yes, those tests will generate false positives and I currently
> have no idea how to reduce the amount of false positives noticably.

Me neither, sorry.
 
> > For the other checks, I think
> > - the severity might be lowered on some of them
> >   (not everything is a horrible error even if we don't want it in the
> >   perl group)
> Thanks for that hint. I think it especially applies to the check if
> the Perl Module name is present in the package description.

Ack, that's probably the best example.
 

On Sat, 16 May 2015 22:39:15 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:

> > Check: cdbs (perl-specific)
> >   Tag: arch-any-package-needs-newer-cdbs (*)
> >   Tag: module-build-tiny-needs-newer-cdbs
> I believe Jonas already raised concerns about these.

Yup.
 
> > Check: debhelper (perl-specific)
> >   Tag: arch-any-package-needs-newer-debhelper (*)
> >   Tag: module-build-tiny-needs-newer-debhelper
> I presume the same issue holds for these.

Well, packages with Module::Build::Tiny would just explode instead of
build without the fix in debhelper 9.20140227. Currently this is no
issue as long as a debhelper version >= stable is used but until a
few weeks ago the then stable version was not enough and the check
helpful. - Since this still affects potential backports to oldstable
I would personally keep it.
 
> > Check: usr-lib-perl5
> >   Tag: usr-lib-perl5-mentioned
> Ok.  Please:
>  * Chose a more descriptive tag name.  Maybe:
>    "mentions-deprecate-usr-lib-perl5-dir"

Hm, deprecated is not exactly true in my understanding, is not used
anymore.


Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer -  https://www.debian.org/
 `. `'  Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: Van Morrison

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature


Reply to: