On 14/10/26 12:36 am, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > Control: tags -1 + patch > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 01:13:05PM +0200, Philipp Huebner wrote: >> What was strange though: some packages hit this bug, others did not. >> >> Turns out it is related to "automatic" overrides being present or not. >> A python package of mine had automatic overrides for >> "package-contains-documentation-outside-usr-share-doc >> [usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/PackageName-Version.egg-info*]" >> >> The --show-overrides option (hitting #1019690 here) said: >> "N: masked by screen python/egg/metadata" >> >> After adding explicit overrides in the package the --fail-on function worked >> correctly again and I got exit code 0 instead of 2. > > So the issue is that these "automatic" overrides aren't actually > overrides internally, but "masks". Lintian's default EWI output treats > masked and overridden tags similarly, in terms of display priority, but > does not treat them the same when it comes to the fail-on parameter. > > The following patch changes lintian to treat masks like overrides when > counting reported tags. With this patch applied, tags that are masked > internally no longer count as reported, so they don't trigger "fail-on" > for different severities. Note that it specifically does *not* trigger > '--fail-on override'. That would be easy to implement, but I don't > think it's the right thing to do, as a masked tag is not really under a > package maintainer's control and doesn't indicate anything that they've > specifically enabled in their package. > > This is a slight change in behavior, but I think it's a reasonable one. > The existence of this bug highlights how confusing the current behavior > can be.
As such, I dislike the idea of screen altogether - it is simply easier to not trigger certain tags when they should not be triggered rather than masking it like this. Dropping that should not be too difficult, but assessing the impact of it would need some analysis. I guess for now we could take your patch. Please make an MR -- it is much easier to review with passing CI. > >>From dca99e1438ef25518bbb440ceb2e7c540f5a14b1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Noah Meyerhans <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2026 14:35:48 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH] don't count masked tags as reported > > Closes: #1031878 > --- > lib/Lintian/Pool.pm | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib/Lintian/Pool.pm b/lib/Lintian/Pool.pm > index db153f989..f7c0157b7 100644 > --- a/lib/Lintian/Pool.pm > +++ b/lib/Lintian/Pool.pm > @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ sub process{ > next > unless $PROFILE->display_level_for_tag($hint->tag_name); > > - if (!defined $hint->override) { > + if (!defined $hint->override && !@{$hint->masks}) { > > ++$reported_count{$tag->visibility} > if !$tag->experimental;
