On Tue, 06 Jan 2026 03:43:07 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
* application-in-library-section * library-package-name-for-application
(… which mostly appear together, so if anything, one should be enough …)
I actually think most of the problems flagged by this are valid. With packages incorrectly marked as libs, or programs shipped in shared library packages, or in python or perl module packages, or non-development programs marked with their implementation language which should be irrelevant. But given that for interpreted languages we do not have the libs vs libdevel vs devel distinction, the language section gets all these into it. :/
From the perl perspective, these tags are mostly annoying; aside from explicit applications, which shouldn't be named libFOO-BAR-perl and probably also shouldn't be in section: perl, there are many libraries which have some nice script included.
Which leads to lintian overrides with comments like # We're a library, but have a handy application bundled in the distribution # We're a library with a handy command-line utility # This is a library which includes a convenience CLI script # We're a Perl library, but we contain some helper scripts etc.
Perhaps a compromise for now could be to ignore language specific sections for now? (Although as mentioned above, I think several of those are actual problems IMO.)
This would indeed be nice from my POV. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe`-
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
