Hi, On 24/02/26 at 02:38 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > [ CCing Lucas for UDD, and Christoph for DDPO. ] > > On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 20:59:55 +0100, Paul Gevers wrote: > > Package: qa.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > User: [email protected] > > > Multiple of my packages do not have a proper URL to watch. Lintian suggest > > to > > add a watch file with comments, and uscan handles those gracefully. UDD > > turns them into an error on line 106 in rimporters/upstream.rb. > > > > Please improve UDD to treat "empty" watch files as they are meant to be by > > people that follow Lintian's advice. > > I think using the new watch format 5 with its "Untrackable:" field > support is probably a more explicit way to handle this, which is what > I've switched the couple of packages that I maintain that are in this > same situation. > > To try to improve this I tried to modify both UDD and DDPO, to track > and show these as a new status, and show on DDPO in gray to avoid > creating the current alarming red upper-case entries, which seem wrong > given that I don't think these packages should be worse-off than ones > with no watch file included. > > The attached two patches try to implement this, but they are > completely untested. I guess the one in UDD could be massaged to also > include the watch format 4 with only comments (originally requested in > this report), by checking in the same if/else case that none of the > fields are present (given that the previous cases handle non-existing > watch file). > > (I've also provided an MR for lintian updating its recommendation to > use format 5 with > <https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/merge_requests/668>)
The changes have been merged in UDD and DDPO. I'm leaving the bug open as version 4 is not covered by the changes, but the affected packages should really move to version 5 and use Untrackable. Lucas
