Bug#994139: lintian: warning about superficial autopkgtests is counterproductive
On Wed, 2021-09-29 at 18:59 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > Would you be willing to revert your commit that bumped the visibility > [1] until we can figure out a better way to proceed? Reverted. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#994139: lintian: warning about superficial autopkgtests is counterproductive
Hi Paul, On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:54 PM Sean Whitton wrote: > > I agree, and would like to see the new tag downgraded below the W: > level. Taking great pride in the fact that Lintian is team-maintained, I am reluctant to act here. Would you be willing to revert your commit that bumped the visibility [1] until we can figure out a better way to proceed? Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/cbf654cce71dd2ac294c82767963cc0507093d42
Bug#994139: lintian: warning about superficial autopkgtests is counterproductive
Hello, On Sun 12 Sep 2021 at 07:07PM +01, Simon McVittie wrote: > I see lintian has recently started emitting warnings for packages that > have autopkgtests, but only superficial autopkgtests. I think this is > counterproductive. > > Obviously, if a package can have reliable autopkgtests that are not > superficial (not always feasible!), then we would prefer to have those. > > However, if non-superficial autopkgtests are not achievable, then it's > *considerably* better to have superficial autopkgtests than no coverage > at all - a superficial test, like running "foo --help" and checking > that it doesn't segfault or linking a trivial program to a library and > checking that it can link, can at least check that the package is not > *completely* broken (perhaps in time to stop a serious regression in the > package or a dependency from migrating to testing). I agree, and would like to see the new tag downgraded below the W: level. It is not always a bug of greater severity than "wishlist" that a package doesn't have non-superficial autopkgtests. Perhaps it would be a bug of a greater severity for some packages, based on certain roles they might have, but not in general. I would also note that Policy doesn't say anything about the degree to which it is valuable to have autopkgtests -- unlike, for example, how it says that all installed programs should have manpages. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#995286: lintian: new-package-should-not-package-python2-module false positive for python-*-doc packages
Package: lintian Version: 2.106.1 Hello, lintian emits false positive new-package-should-not-package-python2-module tag for Python python-*-doc packages [1]. This could be fixed by skipping binary packages from Section: doc. [1] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/new-package-should-not-package-python2-module Andrius
