Control: tag -1 patch
Cyril Brulebois (2023-01-23):
> Can we please finally drop those checks? You'll find above the green
> light from Sean regarding lintian's possibly moving ahead of changes in
> Policy; since December, 5.6.11 even ends with:
>
> udebs and source packages that only
Hi lintian maintainers,
Cyril Brulebois (2022-04-13):
> Sean Whitton (2021-08-12):
> > On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 04:08AM +02, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >
> > > Whatever happens on the debian-policy front (if anything), I'd prefer if
> > > lintian would stop emitting those errors on its own. It
Hi,
Sean Whitton (2021-08-12):
> On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 04:08AM +02, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> > Whatever happens on the debian-policy front (if anything), I'd prefer if
> > lintian would stop emitting those errors on its own. It doesn't have to
> > follow the letter of Policy, does it?
>
>
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 09:43:32AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 9:12 AM Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> > Then I would suggest that a new lintian category is designed to catter
> > for such usage, so that tools might chose not to display such warnings
> > as they do
Hello,
On Fri 13 Aug 2021 at 12:36PM -07, Felix Lechner wrote:
> How do you know that people actually bring their packages up to the
> latest policy revision before they update the Standards-Version field?
There is a "must" requirement not to do that in Policy, and I trust DDs
to follow those.
Hi Sean,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:08 AM Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> It is useful metadata about the state of a package for when NMUers or
> those outside of Debian want to work with it.
How do you know that people actually bring their packages up to the
latest policy revision before they update
Hello Sam,
On Thu 12 Aug 2021 at 05:35PM -06, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I thought I provided such an argument.
> (you trimmed that part of my message when replying).
> My argument was roughly that things like build systems, use of dh,
> debian/rules interfaces etc might well need to apply to source
Hello Sam,
On Thu 12 Aug 2021 at 05:35PM -06, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I thought I provided such an argument.
> (you trimmed that part of my message when replying).
> My argument was roughly that things like build systems, use of dh,
> debian/rules interfaces etc might well need to apply to source
Hello,
On Fri 13 Aug 2021 at 08:10AM -07, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:57 AM Bill Allombert wrote:
>>
>> Is there some new external factor that make any unaddressed lintian
>> warnings problematic ?
>
> That may go beyond the scope of the present discussion, but
Hello Felix,
On Thu 12 Aug 2021 at 06:17PM -07, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Would you please point to the argument for why d-i micro debs are
> exempt from policy, or from a documented Standards-Version, or both?
As has been noted by Phil Hands, one of the points of having udebs is to
be able to
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 9:12 AM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> Then I would suggest that a new lintian category is designed to catter
> for such usage, so that tools might chose not to display such warnings
> as they do with 'P: pedantic' currently.
I am not sure that helps. The tag
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 08:10:57AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:57 AM Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> > Is there some new external factor that make any unaddressed lintian
> > warnings problematic ?
>
> That may go beyond the scope of the present discussion, but
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:57 AM Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> Is there some new external factor that make any unaddressed lintian
> warnings problematic ?
That may go beyond the scope of the present discussion, but yes:
First, Lintian packaging hints are always viewed as imperfections;
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 06:17:18PM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Finally, please allow me to add some powerful statistics to the
> record. The tag 'out-of-date-standards-version' currently occurs in
> 10,813 source packages in the archive (out of about 33,000). [7] It is
> an incident ratio of
Hi Sean,
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 3:37 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> I believe that we failed to consider udebs when we made the change which
> made S-V mandatory. I propose we remove the requirement for S-V in
> udebs and source packages producing only udebs, until and unless someone
> provides a
> "Sean" == Sean Whitton writes:
Sean> On Thu 12 Aug 2021 at 11:47PM +02, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> Sean Whitton (2021-08-12):
>>> On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 08:41AM -06, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > So, it seems fairly obvious to me that Standards-Version is
Hi Sam,
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 7:42 AM Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> I'd need to know more ... in order to have an opinion on
> whether there should be an obligation to comply with these aspects of
> policy.
Thank you for your line of thinking. I totally agree with you.
> 1) I realize i don't
control: clone -1 -2
control: reassign -2 debian-policy
control: retitle -2 Don't require Standards-Version field when only udebs
Hello,
On Thu 12 Aug 2021 at 11:47PM +02, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Sean Whitton (2021-08-12):
>> On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 08:41AM -06, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
Hi Sean,
Sean Whitton (2021-08-12):
> On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 08:41AM -06, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> >> "Cyril" == Cyril Brulebois writes:
> >
> > Cyril> Hi, Felix Lechner (2021-07-26):
> >
> > Cyril> cc-ing debian-policy@ for some possible feedback.
> >
> > Cyril> I'm not sure why
Hello,
On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 04:08AM +02, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Whatever happens on the debian-policy front (if anything), I'd prefer if
> lintian would stop emitting those errors on its own. It doesn't have to
> follow the letter of Policy, does it?
No, it doesn't. While the Lintian
Hello kibi,
On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 08:41AM -06, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Cyril" == Cyril Brulebois writes:
>
> Cyril> Hi, Felix Lechner (2021-07-26):
>
> Cyril> cc-ing debian-policy@ for some possible feedback.
>
> Cyril> I'm not sure why we should be spending time tracking down
>
> "Cyril" == Cyril Brulebois writes:
Cyril> Hi, Felix Lechner (2021-07-26):
Cyril> cc-ing debian-policy@ for some possible feedback.
Cyril> I'm not sure why we should be spending time tracking down
Cyril> Policy changes in (source for) udeb packages… so adding then
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 7:08 PM Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> It doesn't have to
> follow the letter of Policy, does it?
The Lintian maintainers are happy to participate in a discussion, but
they do not implement their personal policy stances in defiance of the
project's authoritative
Hi,
Felix Lechner (2021-07-26):
> Control: forcemerge 988911 -1
>
> Hi Cyril,
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 5:36 PM Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >
> > That's one example where all binaries are udebs so there's no need for
> > such a field.
>
> As you pointed out and—as was noted in the other bug
Control: forcemerge 988911 -1
Hi Cyril,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 5:36 PM Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> That's one example where all binaries are udebs so there's no need for
> such a field.
As you pointed out and—as was noted in the other bug [1]—the tag was
not issued for your udebs but your dsc.
Package: lintian
Version: 2.104.0
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-b...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
lintian in bullseye is emitting this, e.g. while building the hw-detect
source package:
E: hw-detect source: required-field debian/control@source Standards-Version
E: hw-detect source:
26 matches
Mail list logo
