Bug#995498: FP? missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon python3
Hi, On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 1:45 AM Julien Puydt wrote: > > so I think it's a false positive. Actually, Lintian has required the ':any' for Python prerequisites since 2013 [1] but the implementation was defective. [2] You are now seeing an accurate picture of Lintian's settings [3][4][5][6][7] because the diagnostics were fixed. [8] That being said, the current settings are probably wrong. There appears to have been no bootstrapping reason to require the ':any' for Python across the board. The setting is also not correct for all cases. It will probably be removed in the near future. I am still researching my recent commit [8] in the context of the rationale presented in 2013. [9] My position is that "python:any" implies the ability to satisfy "python". > If it's not, both lintian's output and the error description in > /usr/share/lintian/tags/m/missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon.tag > fail to explain what the matter really is. Thank you for the pointer. For the sake of consistency, I recently adjusted several tag descriptions [10] but apparently missed that one. Either way, the documentation changes will probably be reverted when the ':any' is dropped from the Python prerequisites. Thank you for bringing the matter to our attention! Kind regards Felix Lechner [1] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/beb1094db955fd99b693fca1e4c87958676dfe74 [2] https://bugs.debian.org/994902 [3] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Debhelper.pm#L90 [4] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Debian/Rules.pm#L41-50 [5] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/lib/Lintian/Check/Testsuite.pm#L58-59 [6] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/data/scripts/interpreters#L80-81 [7] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/data/scripts/versioned-interpreters#L77-78 [8] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/9bc560a62571f2f1a70ce7044093c42ff14e3efa [9] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/153961ead4ea6c7d38951f36852e43d110b8db30 [10] https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/ec728f427a2aa4f1d2451117448e79979a106f07
Bug#995606: lintian: non-free font packages and {truetype,opentype}-font-prohibits-installable-embedding
Hi Paul, On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 10:03 PM Paul Wise wrote: > > downgrade the embedding tags to either info or pedantic > for non-free packages. I too would like to see variable visibilities, but we do not currently offer them. The traditional solution has been to introduce new tags. Maybe I will take it as an opportunity to give the matter some thought. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Bug#995606: lintian: non-free font packages and {truetype,opentype}-font-prohibits-installable-embedding
On Sat, 2021-10-02 at 22:15 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > I too would like to see variable visibilities, but we do not currently > offer them. The traditional solution has been to introduce new tags. Splitting the tag up would also allow having different advice for packages in main vs non-free, which I guess is not an option for a single tag either, so splitting them is probably a good idea anyway. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#995606: lintian: non-free font packages and {truetype,opentype}-font-prohibits-installable-embedding
Package: lintian Severity: wishlist For non-free fonts, prohibiting embedding is often consistent with the license, so the two lintian warnings often don't really apply. On the other hand prohibiting embedding is particularly user hostile so Debian should probably try to discourage it. On balance I think the right solution is to downgrade the embedding tags to either info or pedantic for non-free packages. The openboard-extras-nonfree package is already overriding this tag, probably due to the warning vs pedantic level. truetype-font-prohibits-installable-embedding opentype-font-prohibits-installable-embedding -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Processed: forcibly merging 995498 995490
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > forcemerge 995498 995490 Bug #995498 [lintian] FP? missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon python3 Bug #995490 [lintian] lintian: false positive python3-script-but-no-python3-dep with Depends: python3, seems to want python3:any instead Merged 995490 995498 > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 995490: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=995490 995498: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=995498 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#995498: FP? missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon python3
On Sat, 02 Oct 2021 10:40:14 +0200 Julien Puydt wrote: > E: python-anyio source: missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon python3 > => python3:any | python3-all:any | python3-dev:any | python3-all- > dev:any | dh-sequence-python3 > > but in d/control: > Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (= 13), >dh-python, >python3, I just got bit error by this as well. Adding a :any in front of python3 fixed it for me, but I am not sure if this is a right thing to do for every package that might use python in dh process. All the more, I don't really see why this should emit a lintian "error" at all, because clearly, the build-deps are satisfied. Unless I misunderstand, a missing :any should be demoted to something else and at the very least, not be an error. Nilesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#995498: FP? missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon python3
Package: lintian Version: 2.107.0 Severity: normal Updating the python-anyio package, lintian complained quite vehemently (an error): E: python-anyio source: missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon python3 => python3:any | python3-all:any | python3-dev:any | python3-all- dev:any | dh-sequence-python3 but in d/control: Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (= 13), dh-python, python3, python3-hypothesis , python3-pip, python3-setuptools, python3-setuptools-scm, python3-sniffio, python3-pytest (>= 6.2.5) , python3-pytest-mock (>= 1.11.1) , python3-trustme , python3-uvloop so I think it's a false positive. If it's not, both lintian's output and the error description in /usr/share/lintian/tags/m/missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon.tag fail to explain what the matter really is. Cheers, J.Puydt
