On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 11:23:24PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > Right. And the lintian message suggests exactly what I'm suggesting: a > watch file that documents exactly why 'uscan' can't yet do its work > for this particular package.
Seems wrong to me. The lintian text states that a package which is "(...) not maintained upstream (...)" may add a commented watch file "(...) containing only comments to document this." In my opinion the wording is very clear and aims at packages who are not maintained upstream. Meaning that a watch file is useless, because it will never report new upstream versions. But a comment is useful, because everyone who wants to do something with the package can read from it that upstream is dead. Despite that I'm not sure if the watch file is the proper place for such a note this has sureley an entitlement, and the watch file can't be fixed anyway, so a warning is inappropriate. But this case is different. This case has a more or less active upstream (or did I get something wrong?) with broken distribution tarball names. It breaks watch file support, because uscan is not *able* to detect upstream versions. > Indeed. Documenting them explicitly is what I'm suggesting, instead of > an override to silence a message. Well, the problem with your solution is that you silence an indicator for a problem anyway. Someone who looks at the lintian status of the package can do this from the outside and can decide to act upon. If you add a comment in a watch file then you have a comment in a hidden place for a lot of people who could potential fix the problem. They would need to look *into* that specific package, which is unlikely. > Creating the watch file with comments on the *current* situation is no > barrier to also working with upstream to fix that situation. In No, not for the current maintainer, thats true. But it *is* a barrier for everybody who wants to track specific problems from the outside, e.g. by looking at lintian.d.o. > addition, it documents the current situation exactly where people can > be expected to look, for as long as that situation persists. Where people can be expected to look if they already decided to fix a certain package, yes. But their is a chance that somebody wants to fix different packages that have similar problems, for example. The problem is hidden from them. I'd be interested to hear other opinions about this. Obvious these are just my 2 cents, above. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
