Felix Lechner <[email protected]> writes: > The best outcome would be a simple and logical rule to divide tasks > between our tools. For example, it could be helpful if Dpkg and > Debhelper prevent only the creation of packages that cannot be built or > unpackaged safely.
Why? If something is in error, preventing the package from building entirely ensures that the error is fixed. Linting is optional; I don't think it makes sense to rely on linting to reject invalid packaages. > This message was prompted by recent changes in Dpkg which, if you > haven't noticed, encroach a little bit on Lintian's traditional area of > expertise. Because Dpkg now fails to build some of Lintian's test > packages, the tags can no longer be tested and will be removed from > Lintian. Seems like a positive development. Less code for Lintian to maintain, less code to check, fewer broken packages in the archive... a win all around. dpkg has been picking up basic sanity checks for obvious packaging bugs from Lintian going back to when I was the primary maintainer, so quite a long time ago now. That has frequently invalidated some tags and some Lintian checks, which is a good excuse to happily delete code. I thought of it similar to deprecation warnings in a language becoming errors in a later release as the semantics of the language are tightened, removing work from linters. > Like so many things Guillem writes, that is a mischaracterization. I'm not sure what's going on between you and Guillem (and am not sure I want to know), but the way you keep sniping at him is uncomfortable to read and rather off-putting. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
