Bug#460499: lintian: No need to warn about missing short-description LSB header in init.d scripts
On 11263 March 1977, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Do you think we should drop it completely or just reduce it to info? Reducing it to info is probably good. Keep it at warning and the situation will change over time and packages get that header. -- bye Joerg [GFDL] Well, Debian is not for newbies so the documentation problem is not really huge -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#460499: lintian: No need to warn about missing short-description LSB header in init.d scripts
Package: lintian Version: 1.23.41 Now that the LSB headers in init.d scripts is more used, it has become obvious that the lintian warning about missing short-description is not needed. As far as I know, there is nothing using this header, and quite a lot of scripts are missing it. It is only nice to have, and do not deserve a warning on its own. Here is an example warning from the list of lintian messages on the web: W: chrony: init.d-script-missing-lsb-keyword /etc/init.d/chrony short-description Because of this, I recommend dropping the warning. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#460499: lintian: No need to warn about missing short-description LSB header in init.d scripts
Petter Reinholdtsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Package: lintian Version: 1.23.41 Now that the LSB headers in init.d scripts is more used, it has become obvious that the lintian warning about missing short-description is not needed. As far as I know, there is nothing using this header, and quite a lot of scripts are missing it. It is only nice to have, and do not deserve a warning on its own. Here is an example warning from the list of lintian messages on the web: W: chrony: init.d-script-missing-lsb-keyword /etc/init.d/chrony short-description Because of this, I recommend dropping the warning. Do you think we should drop it completely or just reduce it to info? I think having a description is rather nice and may help figure out where an init script abandoned by some previous package came from without having to do as much research. It still feels like a best practice thing even if it isn't used by software. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#460499: lintian: No need to warn about missing short-description LSB header in init.d scripts
[Russ Allbery] Do you think we should drop it completely or just reduce it to info? Reducing it to info is probably good. I think having a description is rather nice and may help figure out where an init script abandoned by some previous package came from without having to do as much research. It still feels like a best practice thing even if it isn't used by software. I agree, and this is the reason it was requested as a warning in the first place. But as it is more important to flag that provides, required-start, required-stop, default-start and stop is present than short-description, I believe it is a good idea to have two levels, and thus drop the warning for short-description. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
