On 2015-05-18 17:07, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Sat, 16 May 2015 19:30:40 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: > >> gregor herrmann wrote: >>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 21:32:29 +0200, Axel Beckert wrote: >>>> My main movation is to get the check application-not-library with the >>>> following tags into lintian: >>>> * libapp-perl-package-name >>>> * library-package-name-for-application >>>> * application-in-library-section >>> I'm seeing quite a few false positives with those checks; >> I assume that you don't include libapp-perl-package-name in that >> statement. I consider that tag to be quite precise: "Certainty: >> certain" > > Right, I meant the other two. > >> With regards to library-package-name-for-application and >> application-in-library-section, I've set "Certainty: possible" > > I'd rather rate it as "wild guess" :) > >> But yes, those tests will generate false positives and I currently >> have no idea how to reduce the amount of false positives noticably. > > Me neither, sorry. >
Based on this remark, I suspect "wild-guess" is indeed better. Do you think that more data be helpful here? I.e. if we collected a full run worth of data from lintian.d.o, do you think we could increase the reliability of the tag? I must admit that I am a bit concerned about adding (more) wild-guess tags. They can quickly become a drain on resources because they can trivially receive a lot of bugs to fix false-positive. > [...] > On Sat, 16 May 2015 22:39:15 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > >>> Check: cdbs (perl-specific) >>> Tag: arch-any-package-needs-newer-cdbs (*) >>> Tag: module-build-tiny-needs-newer-cdbs >> I believe Jonas already raised concerns about these. > > Yup. > >>> Check: debhelper (perl-specific) >>> Tag: arch-any-package-needs-newer-debhelper (*) >>> Tag: module-build-tiny-needs-newer-debhelper >> I presume the same issue holds for these. > > Well, packages with Module::Build::Tiny would just explode instead of > build without the fix in debhelper 9.20140227. Currently this is no > issue as long as a debhelper version >= stable is used but until a > few weeks ago the then stable version was not enough and the check > helpful. - Since this still affects potential backports to oldstable > I would personally keep it. > While it is certainly /not/ a blocker, the concern from my PoV is that the expected life time of these tags are now less than a year and not relevant to unstable/testing. Unless the merge (plus release) happens "really soon(tm)", we might be a in a position where we spend time moving the tag only to find it obsolete by the time it is deployed. >>> Check: usr-lib-perl5 >>> Tag: usr-lib-perl5-mentioned >> Ok. Please: >> * Chose a more descriptive tag name. Maybe: >> "mentions-deprecated-usr-lib-perl5-dir" > > Hm, deprecated is not exactly true in my understanding, is not used > anymore. > > > Cheers, > gregor > If it is not used anymore, then perhaps "mentions-obsolete-usr-lib-perl5" or maybe "references-unused-usr-lib-perl5" ? Thanks, ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
