Hi Douglas, On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:51 AM Torrance, Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Would it be possible to avoid emitting this warning for R packages?
Yes! We have a new facility for the purpose of granting summary exemptions to package groups. It is called a screen. [1] As for your broader issue, I would actually prefer if version strings were totally unrestricted, but am in the minority. [2] I will revisit the details and then install a screen for you, unless we can get rid of the tag altogether. > most R source packages can be identified easily because they generally start > with "r-". We do not like to group based on installable names or source names. Those are a last resort because they enshrine namespaces that do not exist otherwise. On average, they also do not work well for language families where names vary (although it may for R). Can you think of another way to identify R packages? The tag is issued for sources. [3] Maybe you can find some ideas in the existing checks. [4][5][6] Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://lintian.debian.org/screens [2] Sorry to quote myself, https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2020/06/msg00015.html [3] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Debian/Changelog.pm#L105-106 [4] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Languages/R.pm [5] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Languages/R/Architecture.pm [6] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Languages/R/SiteLibrary.pm
