Re: Hard coded package names in lintian
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> writes:
>
>> So, libglib1.2ldbl, libgtk1.2 and maybe libgd2-xpm would qualify to be
>> included?
>>
>> Do you want me to file a bug to include them or is mentioning them over
>> here enough?
>
> Could you explain more why that would be? For the first two, do you think
> there are maintainers of GTK 1 packages who don't know that it's
> deprecated?
>
> For example, I maintain one package that depends on GTK 1 (RFA'd), and I
> don't see any way in which a lintian warning would be of assistance. I
> know perfectly well that it depends on GTK 1 and that's in oldlibs. If no
> one rewrites it before Debian decides to drop GTK 1, I suppose it will be
> removed from the archive.
>
> lintian usually adds entries for things like old versions of Emacs where
> the maintainer may not be aware that simple changes are required to their
> package to keep it working. Usually we add a lintian warning in
> conjunction with a mass bug filing; if you're not ready to do a mass bug
> filing, I'm not sure that a lintian warning is in order. (And I don't
> think a lintian warning really ever makes sense for something like GTK
> 1.0, where there is no simple problem that can be fixed and you're
> basically warning the maintainer that the software either has to be
> rewritten or dropped from the archive.)
I'm certainly ready to do a mass bug filing. There surely should be
documentation on how to transition from gtk1.2 to gtk2.0 by now...
Cheers
Luk
Reply to: