On Sun, 18 Sep 2022 00:14:07 +0100 Colin Watson wrote: > This is pretty oversensitive. Firstly, it's HTML, which is still often > enough written by hand anyway. As it happens, these particular HTML > files are generated from halibut input that's also provided in the > source package, though I can't see how Lintian could possibly expect to > know that.
I am not a lintian maintainer, but: HTML is very often generated and there are many different ways to generate it. I think the right thing for lintian to do here is to know about more of the source formats and when there is generated HTML in the tarball but source is also present, then emit a new lower severity generated-files tag instead of the existing source-is-missing tag. I think the right thing for putty here is for upstream to remove the HTML from their VCS and tarballs, then add the generation process to their build system and continuous integration, so that they always know when there are problems with generating the HTML. If they refuse then you could exclude the HTML from Debian's copy of the upstream tarball. Until either lintian changes or the putty HTML gets removed, overriding the lintian warning in putty seems the correct thing to do. PS: I note that manual pages are similar to HTML in this regard and I think the same reasoning above applies to the putty manual pages and to lintian's treatment of manual pages in source packages. > I suggest restoring something like this code to check for <script> > tags around the source-is-missing check for HTML files. If that is done, I think lintian should add more heuristics to detect other generated HTML. The halibut generated HTML doesn't make that easy but there are some signals that can be added I think, like this: halibut-1.3/bk_html.c: html_raw(&ho, "<!-- version IDs:\n"); -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
