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

Re: Lintian warnings for Python packaging?



On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:54:04AM +0100, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> Currently, Lintian supports dozen of tags [1], but very few strictly
> related to Python packaging. I think maintainers and sponsors would
> benefit a lot if some common mistakes and suggestions are automatically
> displayed by Lintian.

> I propose a non comprehensive list of tags I'd like to see available:
> * E: Don't hard-code {site,dist}-packages

hard-coded where, and how will you detect this?

> * W: Build extension for every supported Python version

how will you detect this?

> * W: #!/usr/bin/env python as shebang for Python scripts

AFAIK this is allowed by the existing python policy; and if it's allowed,
then I think such a warning is just noise.  We should either forbid this
shebang line completely (with a clear rationale), or not bother maintainers
about it, because if it's not mandatory then it's not worth modifying
upstream code over.

> * I: python-support and XB-Python-Version field

Why bother?  XB-Python-Version was intended as archive-side annotation of
packages; if it's noteworthy at all, I think it's noteworthy whether or not
using python-support.

> * I: No dh_python but pycompat file available
> * I: Place Python applications in private directory

Likewise, I don't see the point for something that's only informational.

> * P: Python extension but no -dbg package

Well, this fits the definition of "pedantic" (people - e.g., me - don't
agree that this check is correct).  But I don't see the point in adding
pedantic tags to lintian. :)

The rest seem ok to me.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: