On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:41:19 +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > So, I'd appreciate very much to see this tag emitted exclusively when
> > running lintian on lintian.d.o and Debian's ftp-master […] but not when
> > running locally

> Whilst I have not seen Ubuntu folks complain about this tag being
> emitted by Lintian I can understand the request to not run it on
> Ubuntu (etc.).

As I tried to convey in the parts that got elided, I do think the
Ubuntu folks would definitely want to have this tag be kept emitting
for their archive. That's at least what I gathered from their support
in the original policy bug.

> However, I do not follow why a Debian maintainer maintaining Debian
> packages should not see this when running Lintian locally, both in
> principle and in practice; it would be confusing for it to only
> appear on lintian.d.o and, for example, *I* would want to be
> alerted of this prior to an upload.

Right, and sorry, should have expanded on that. This is something I
also pondered, and I realize it would be slighly annoying to discover
that a package gets (eventually, which I think is the intention)
rejected only after the upload. But, this will get you a mail with
the reason, and this should happen only once (in theory :).

Having the packages not emit warnings right now would also be
inconvenient, but the number of users within the Debian archive is
low enough that a bug filing should be fine before the more severe
rejects get deployed after buster is released. At worst the
maintainers would find out once they upload after the rejects are
in place, which does not seem too bad either.

The problem with emitting this tag unconditionally, even within the
Debian-vendor realm, is that people create local packages for their
own, or for $work, etc., and in most cases will not go to the trouble
of creating a new vendor for this. And emitting such tag for a decision
that should only be getting applied within the Debian (and Ubuntu)
archives does not seem right?

> Lintian supports dpkg-vendor - can we not just add an exception to
> the Ubuntu vendor-specific profile?

As mentioned above, this really has nothing to do with Ubuntu, as in
they should be kept having the same treatment as the Debian archive.


Reply via email to