On January 14, 2018 8:12:00 AM UTC, Niels Thykier <[email protected]> wrote: >Scott Kitterman: >> Package: lintian >> Version: 2.5.68 >> Severity: normal >> >> Dear Maintainer, >> >> When new-package-should-not-package-python2-module appears on >lintian.d.o, it >> is an unneeded distraction. At this point it's no longer a new >package. Any >> future upload will 'fix' the issue since all this test does is check >that >> there is only a single debian/changelog entry. >> >> I can, sort of, see the utility of this, for new packages, to get the >> maintainer to consider if the new python2 package is really needed or >not, but >> by the time lintian.d.o sees the package, it's too late. >> >> Please supress this tag from lintian.d.o >> >> Scott K >> > >Hi, > >A different view: On occasion, we have pulled pre-releases on >lintian.d.o and that triggered a bug from people, who did not like that >fact that a local lintian and lintian.d.o disagreed on output. > > * If we supress that tag, we should be prepared for a bug requesting > it to be undone for consistency with the locally installable > lintian.
That might be mitigated by adding an explanation for the tag about why it's not relevant to lintian.d.o. > >Secondly, lintian.d.o does not report what (tag visibility) >configuration it uses. So it would be totally hidden for anyone >watching the website. We start to do this for more than one tag, we >should probably look into exposing the current profile (as it is >defined) plus any relevant command-line options that affects the >visibility of tags. (Bonus if tag page will mention that the tag is >suppressed/hidden). > >Thanks, >~Niels That sounds good. Scott K
