Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes: Ah. I have a few of those. For example, take this warning from Lintian: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly This is not policy, but dev-ref, Fixed the cross-reference, which was simply wrong. and when it was proposed, it was argued that if we had a non clause, the front ends can make it look nicer, by completing the sentence, adding the period, etc, (perhaps by showing Package is a short description . That was around 6 years or so ago. [...] And why is this a warning as opposed to an informational message? How is the package impacted by having a gosh darned period in the short description? This is the same level of impairment as the other non info warnings? seriously? Thisis not a severity normal bug. It is not even a severity wishlist bug. It is a style issue. I think an argument could be made that it's a severity: minor bug from a consistency perspective, but not normal. I've therefore now downgraded it to severity: minor, which I think more accurately represents how important it is. Since it's also certainty: possible, this downgrades it to an info-level tag. Things like that are why I take every lintian warning with a huge grain of salt. Any others? :) Ideally, Errors should correlate to important+ bugs, and must violations, I think, warnings are bugs (minor and normal) and should violations, and everything wishlist ought to be a informational message. Style things belong in experimental. And, to give credit where it is due, the majority of the tags are listed at their proper severity. But by no means all of them are. Style things belong in pedantic, unless they're fairly widely agreed-on, in which case they belong as severity: minor. In general, though, I agree with the above. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: There are a few pedantic tags that I routinely ignore, usually because I can't easily do anything about them (like no-upstream-changelog). I like to ask upstream to add a changelog for that. Also the spelling-error-in-binary bugs I filed upstream for warzone2100 are usually fixed in a timely manner. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
Raphael Geissert geiss...@debian.org writes: Pedantic tags are Lintian at its most pickiest and include checks for particular Debian packaging styles, *checks that are very frequently wrong*, and checks that many people disagree with. Expect false positives and Lintian tags that you don't consider useful if you use this option. Adding overrides for pedantic tags is probably not worth the effort. As the person who pushed and introduced pedantic support I always felt a bit hesitant regarding the highlighted statement, maybe I should bring this up on the lintian mailing list and ask Russ for his reasons behind it (maybe what he wanted to express could be paraphrased). If a check is wrong I don't think it should belong to the pedantic category, IMHO. Yeah, maybe we should drop that. I think what I was intending is already covered by checks that many people disagree with. wild-guess certainty doesn't make checks pendantic, only downgrades them to info. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
Rogério Brito rbr...@ime.usp.br writes: On Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: I also think that style issues should not be a part of even Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably better style, then lintian should keep its nose out. If there's a better style I guess nobody would object to consider recommend it or at least make sure lintian doesn't complain about it. Couldn't we have a category of warning/checks that is labelled stylistic? That was actually most of the point of pedantic. Minor possible bugs that aren't stylistic belong in info instead. That's why both of them are suppressed by default. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
Hi, Russ.
On Oct 29 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
That was actually most of the point of pedantic. Minor possible bugs
that aren't stylistic belong in info instead. That's why both of them
are suppressed by default.
OK. Nice. Please keep them there. We can just treat them as pedantic and
not recommend them by default.
(I actually like them there).
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@{mackenzie,ime.usp}.br : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito : http://meusite.mackenzie.com.br/rbrito
Projects: algorithms.berlios.de : lame.sf.net : vrms.alioth.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
Rogério Brito rbr...@ime.usp.br writes: On Oct 29 2009, Russ Allbery wrote: That was actually most of the point of pedantic. Minor possible bugs that aren't stylistic belong in info instead. That's why both of them are suppressed by default. OK. Nice. Please keep them there. We can just treat them as pedantic and not recommend them by default. (I actually like them there). Yeah, it's worth remembering that part of the history of pedantic was to add a new classification for tags that I, as a Lintian maintainer, was not willing to always fix even in my *own* packages. We had a lot of demand in bug reports for adding some additional checks, often repeated requests for the same checks, so I didn't want to drop them entirely, but I also didn't want to bother people with them who weren't explicitly asking for them. There are a few pedantic tags that I routinely ignore, usually because I can't easily do anything about them (like no-upstream-changelog). -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
On Thursday 22 October 2009 22:37:54 Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: I also think that style issues should not be a part of even Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably better style, then lintian should keep its nose out. If there's a better style I guess nobody would object to consider recommend it or You are not getting it. Better is subjective. That's not always true. Better can be subjective, but it can also be objective. If a style scores better on all the metrics we care about that another style, it is objectively better. If a style has advantages over another, but the other does not have an advantage over the first, the first style is objectively better. You can have a dozen better styles, all contradictory. Are you planning on having checks that can never all be met simultaneously? That is what you get when you go for subjectively better styles. We shouldn't warn on subjectively better style, but be should warn on objectively poor style. Here is an excerpt from aptitude (lines edited to remove size and version info for email): --8---cut here---start-8--- i kernel-packageA utility for building Linux kernel related Debian packages. i module-assistant tool to make module package creation easier --8---cut here---end---8--- Frankly, I like the Package-Name: A short sentence with a period. way better. The front ends have never started to display the short descriptions as though they were noun phrases Neither of those are a sentence. The first lacks a verb (or verb phrase). The second also lacks a period and capital letter, but that actually makes it *easier* to use in an actual sentence, since it doesn't have to be modified to be used as a noun phrase. The first is clearly grammatically incorrect -- it can't be used unchanged in any grammatically correct structure. The second is not a sentence, but it is grammatically correct as it can be used unchanged in a grammatically correct structure. (In addition, it stands on its own as a noun phrase.) -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
On Fri, Oct 23 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Thursday 22 October 2009 22:37:54 Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: I also think that style issues should not be a part of even Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably better style, then lintian should keep its nose out. If there's a better style I guess nobody would object to consider recommend it or You are not getting it. Better is subjective. That's not always true. Better can be subjective, but it can also be objective. A packaging style, by definition, is subjective. I would not be called a style other wise. If a style scores better on all the metrics we care about that another style, it is objectively better. If a style has advantages over another, but the other does not have an advantage over the first, the first style is objectively better. Given that we are talking about subjective issues to start with, the criteria for judging these are also subjective. The metrics are subjective, and the whole thing is hand waving and a wash of psuedo objectivity. You can have a dozen better styles, all contradictory. Are you planning on having checks that can never all be met simultaneously? That is what you get when you go for subjectively better styles. We shouldn't warn on subjectively better style, but be should warn on objectively poor style. I think that here objective and style is an oxymoron. Here is an excerpt from aptitude (lines edited to remove size and version info for email): --8---cut here---start-8--- i kernel-packageA utility for building Linux kernel related Debian packages. i module-assistant tool to make module package creation easier --8---cut here---end---8--- Frankly, I like the Package-Name: A short sentence with a period. way better. The front ends have never started to display the short descriptions as though they were noun phrases Neither of those are a sentence. Shrug. I see it as I said: Package-Name: A short sentence with a period. While you correctly assert, somewhat pedantically, that A short sentence with a period. is not a sentence, I assert that it looks better. The first lacks a verb (or verb phrase). The second also lacks a period and capital letter, but that actually makes it *easier* to use in an actual sentence, since it doesn't have to be modified to be used as a noun phrase. Irrelevant, seeing that in a decade and a half no one has done anything to take short descriptions into a sentence. manoj -- His ideas of first-aid stopped short of squirting soda water. P.G. Wodehouse Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
On Friday 23 October 2009 11:15:16 Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, Oct 23 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Thursday 22 October 2009 22:37:54 Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: I also think that style issues should not be a part of even Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably better style, then lintian should keep its nose out. If there's a better style I guess nobody would object to consider recommend it or You are not getting it. Better is subjective. That's not always true. Better can be subjective, but it can also be objective. A packaging style, by definition, is subjective. I would not be called a style other wise. In our context style means a manner of doing things. They are *not* necessarily subjective (whatever that means) and they can be objectively analyzed and compared. If a style scores better on all the metrics we care about that another style, it is objectively better. If a style has advantages over another, but the other does not have an advantage over the first, the first style is objectively better. Given that we are talking about subjective issues to start with, the criteria for judging these are also subjective. The metrics are subjective, and the whole thing is hand waving and a wash of psuedo objectivity. Refuted above. There's nothing about the word style that implies the object it somehow outside the realm of reasoning and judgment. We shouldn't warn on subjectively better style, but be should warn on objectively poor style. I think that here objective and style is an oxymoron. Again, refuted above. Here is an excerpt from aptitude (lines edited to remove size and version info for email): --8---cut here---start-8--- i kernel-packageA utility for building Linux kernel related Debian i module-assistant tool to make module package creation --8---cut here---end---8--- Frankly, I like the Package-Name: A short sentence with a period. way better. Neither of those are a sentence. Shrug. I see it as I said: Package-Name: A short sentence with a period. While you correctly assert, somewhat pedantically, that A short sentence with a period. is not a sentence, I assert that it looks better. I state an objective fact, and am correct. You state a subjective opinion, and I disagree. (Yes, I'm being redundant on purpose.) The first lacks a verb (or verb phrase). The second also lacks a period and capital letter, but that actually makes it *easier* to use in an actual sentence, since it doesn't have to be modified to be used as a noun phrase. Irrelevant, seeing that in a decade and a half no one has done anything to take short descriptions into a sentence. I disagree. One has an objective advantage over the other -- it can be used in grammatically correct structures. Which one looks better is a subjective metric and shouldn't trump objective advantages. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/\_/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
On Fri, Oct 23 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Friday 23 October 2009 11:15:16 Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, Oct 23 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Thursday 22 October 2009 22:37:54 Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: I also think that style issues should not be a part of even Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably better style, then lintian should keep its nose out. If there's a better style I guess nobody would object to consider recommend it or You are not getting it. Better is subjective. That's not always true. Better can be subjective, but it can also be objective. A packaging style, by definition, is subjective. I would not be called a style other wise. In our context style means a manner of doing things. They are *not* necessarily subjective (whatever that means) and they can be objectively analyzed and compared. Nope. There are a number of ways of accomplishing the same technical goal, distinguished only by personal preference. If the end result is the same, only subjective opinions exist. If a style scores better on all the metrics we care about that another style, it is objectively better. If a style has advantages over another, but the other does not have an advantage over the first, the first style is objectively better. Given that we are talking about subjective issues to start with, the criteria for judging these are also subjective. The metrics are subjective, and the whole thing is hand waving and a wash of psuedo objectivity. Refuted above. There's nothing about the word style that implies the object it somehow outside the realm of reasoning and judgment. Red herring. If there are a bunch of eqivalent methods of achieving the goal, then selecting one is a matter of personal opinion. We shouldn't warn on subjectively better style, but be should warn on objectively poor style. I think that here objective and style is an oxymoron. Again, refuted above. Falsely, I think. Here is an excerpt from aptitude (lines edited to remove size and version info for email): --8---cut here---start-8--- i kernel-packageA utility for building Linux kernel related Debian i module-assistant tool to make module package creation --8---cut here---end---8--- Frankly, I like the Package-Name: A short sentence with a period. way better. Neither of those are a sentence. Shrug. I see it as I said: Package-Name: A short sentence with a period. While you correctly assert, somewhat pedantically, that A short sentence with a period. is not a sentence, I assert that it looks better. I state an objective fact, and am correct. You state an irrelevant fact. You state a subjective opinion, and I disagree. Which is what styles are all about. (Yes, I'm being redundant on purpose.) The first lacks a verb (or verb phrase). The second also lacks a period and capital letter, but that actually makes it *easier* to use in an actual sentence, since it doesn't have to be modified to be used as a noun phrase. Irrelevant, seeing that in a decade and a half no one has done anything to take short descriptions into a sentence. I disagree. One has an objective advantage over the other -- it can be used in grammatically correct structures. Which one looks better is a subjective metric and shouldn't trump objective advantages. Objective advantage for the sake of crafting sentences, perhaps. For letting users know what a package is all about? I think not. It could also be objectively better for the goal of preseving the global supply of periods. Irrelevant advantages should not be considered for lintian warnings. Last post. Take it to private email, once you have had the final word on the subject. manoj -- A wise man can see more from the bottom of a well than a fool can from a mountain top. Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: I also think that style issues should not be a part of even Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably better style, then lintian should keep its nose out. If there's a better style I guess nobody would object to consider recommend it or You are not getting it. Better is subjective. You can have a dozen better styles, all contradictory. Are you planning on having checks that can never all be met simultaneously? That is what you get when you go for subjectively better styles. Yeah, I noticed that my argument was poor some minutes after posting the message, but forgot to correct it. The whole idea is to standardise, and preferably reduce to only two standard styles if possible. at least make sure lintian doesn't complain about it. Ah. I have a few of those. For example, take this warning from Lintian: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly This is not policy, but dev-ref, and when it was proposed, it was argued that if we had a non clause, the front ends can make it look nicer, by completing the sentence, adding the period, etc, (perhaps by showing Package is a short description . That was around 6 years or so ago. This should probably be brought up on -devel and the new concensus applied and by lintian. [...] And why is this a warning as opposed to an informational message? How is the package impacted by having a gosh darned period in the short description? This is the same level of impairment as the other non info warnings? seriously? Thisis not a severity normal bug. It is not even a severity wishlist bug. It is a style issue. Agreed, the severity is over inflated. Things like that are why I take every lintian warning with a huge grain of salt. Would be great if you could help out by pointing those out. Even a short message on IRC with a short reasonable, initial, argument is enough. Please remember that lintian has many many checks (counting 832 different tags here), and that verifying each and every of them requires a lot of time and effort so any help is welcome (and by that I don't mean you should do anything else other than running lintian as usual and point out possible issues). Lintian is a great tool. But it has long standing flaws, and previous maintainers of lintian have been resistant to changing that. Feedback is very welcomed. P.S. Last post about this in -mentors, as Charles suggested/requested. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
On Wed, Oct 21 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote: Pedantic tags are Lintian at its most pickiest and include checks for particular Debian packaging styles, *checks that are very frequently wrong*, and checks that many people disagree with. Expect false positives and Lintian tags that you don't consider useful if you use this option. Adding overrides for pedantic tags is probably not worth the effort. As the person who pushed and introduced pedantic support I always felt a bit hesitant regarding the highlighted statement, maybe I should bring this up on the lintian mailing list and ask Russ for his reasons behind it (maybe what he wanted to express could be paraphrased). If a check is wrong I don't think it should belong to the pedantic category, IMHO. Ack. I also think that style issues should not be a part of even Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably better style, then lintian should keep its nose out. manoj -- Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest. -Isaac Asimov Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
Manoj Srivastava wrote: I also think that style issues should not be a part of even Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably better style, then lintian should keep its nose out. If there's a better style I guess nobody would object to consider recommend it or at least make sure lintian doesn't complain about it. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
On Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I also think that style issues should not be a part of even
Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably
better style, then lintian should keep its nose out.
If there's a better style I guess nobody would object to consider recommend
it or at least make sure lintian doesn't complain about it.
Couldn't we have a category of warning/checks that is labelled stylistic?
That way, all odd-ball stylistic changes could be separated from
pedantic and enabled with an even wider range of things (like the
trailing-whitespace-at-eol issue, files that don't end with newline
etc).
I hope that you get the idea.
Regards, Rogério.
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@{mackenzie,ime.usp}.br : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito : http://meusite.mackenzie.com.br/rbrito
Projects: algorithms.berlios.de : lame.sf.net : vrms.alioth.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Rogério Brito wrote: On Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: I also think that style issues should not be a part of even Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably better style, then lintian should keep its nose out. If there's a better style I guess nobody would object to consider recommend it or at least make sure lintian doesn't complain about it. Couldn't we have a category of warning/checks that is labelled stylistic? Whose style would you choose? I am all for idea if it is _my_ style which is selected, and every one else's style will be warned against. That way, all odd-ball stylistic changes could be separated from pedantic and enabled with an even wider range of things (like the trailing-whitespace-at-eol issue, files that don't end with newline etc). Different people have different styles. And electing to use one style over the other does not make a worse package, there is nothing that needs fixing here. Package helpers, patch systems or feature CVCS branches, emacs vs vi I hope that you get the idea. I hope you do too. manoj -- Forgetfulness, n.: A gift of God bestowed upon debtors in compensation for their destitution of conscience. Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
On Oct 22 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Rogério Brito wrote:
Couldn't we have a category of warning/checks that is labelled
stylistic?
Whose style would you choose?
Mine, of course. :-)
I am all for idea if it is _my_ style which is selected, and every
one else's style will be warned against.
I'm not all for the idea of having just one style. I knew that this
objection would appear, but I worded it poorly.
What I had in mind would be a grab-bag of such stylistic things. But
scrap that.
I hope you do too.
Sure.
Regards,
--
Rogério Brito : rbr...@{mackenzie,ime.usp}.br : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito : http://meusite.mackenzie.com.br/rbrito
Projects: algorithms.berlios.de : lame.sf.net : vrms.alioth.debian.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: I also think that style issues should not be a part of even Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably better style, then lintian should keep its nose out. If there's a better style I guess nobody would object to consider recommend it or You are not getting it. Better is subjective. You can have a dozen better styles, all contradictory. Are you planning on having checks that can never all be met simultaneously? That is what you get when you go for subjectively better styles. at least make sure lintian doesn't complain about it. Ah. I have a few of those. For example, take this warning from Lintian: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly This is not policy, but dev-ref, and when it was proposed, it was argued that if we had a non clause, the front ends can make it look nicer, by completing the sentence, adding the period, etc, (perhaps by showing Package is a short description . That was around 6 years or so ago. Here is an excerpt from aptitude (lines edited to remove size and version info for email): --8---cut here---start-8--- i kernel-packageA utility for building Linux kernel related Debian packages. i module-assistant tool to make module package creation easier --8---cut here---end---8--- Frankly, I like the Package-Name: A short sentence with a period. way better. The front ends have never started to display the short descriptions as though they were noun phrases And why is this a warning as opposed to an informational message? How is the package impacted by having a gosh darned period in the short description? This is the same level of impairment as the other non info warnings? seriously? Thisis not a severity normal bug. It is not even a severity wishlist bug. It is a style issue. Once the front ends have been changed, then perhaps it would be a wishlist bug. Things like that are why I take every lintian warning with a huge grain of salt. Ideally, Errors should correlate to important+ bugs, and must violations, I think, warnings are bugs (minor and normal) and should violations, and everything wishlist ought to be a informational message. Style things belong in experimental. And, to give credit where it is due, the majority of the tags are listed at their proper severity. But by no means all of them are. Lintian is a great tool. But it has long standing flaws, and previous maintainers of lintian have been resistant to changing that. manoj -- His life was formal; his actions seemed ruled with a ruler. Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Rogério Brito wrote: On Oct 22 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I am all for idea if it is _my_ style which is selected, and every one else's style will be warned against. I'm not all for the idea of having just one style. I knew that this objection would appear, but I worded it poorly. What I had in mind would be a grab-bag of such stylistic things. But scrap that. Well, this is getting to be bikeshedding, but one may do what indent does: despite there being several different styles of indentation, and the indentation wars being as religious as anything else, indent just allows you to specify your preferred style, and goes from there. So, you could run lintian --style-manoj, and be perfectly in sync with the one true style of packaging. Or else you could say lintian --style-Rogério, if you were less enlightened :-) But, this is probably going to take some effort, and I am not currently volunteering to code that. manoj -- Eighty percent of married men cheat in America. The rest cheat in Europe. Jackie Mason Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
Dear all, May I suggest to send general comments about Lintian to lintian-ma...@debian.org instead of this list? I think that the point was made that mentors have to take the packager’s experience into account when using Lintian. Discussion is drifting on whether this or that check is not of appropriate level, and is off-topic here. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements (was: RFS: ampache (updated package))
Jan Hauke Rahm j...@debian.org writes: Hi Manoj, I'm not going to argue with you about this. On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 04:12:21AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: There is a time and a place where these lintian options are useful. They certainly have a place, and are recommended for experienced developers, and critical for helping to improve lintian. But one needs to know when to use them, and when not to bother. I think this approach is right for Lintian's experimental checks. They should be enabled only by those who want to improve Lintian by finding faults in the checks. I don't think it's right for the pedantic checks that are *not* experimental. If those are never used except by people who want to improve Lintian, then there seems to be little point. So applying this attitude to the Lintian pedantic checks seems to be an argument for not having them in Lintian at all. I just think that this is the wrong perspective. lintian usually has good explanations and I find it for novices particularly helpfull to read those. They rediect to Policy, DevRef etc. Yes. Those checks (that are not experimental) that cause a tag on one's package should cause one to seriously consider whether, and have a convincing answer for why, this package might be an exception to the check. And the most important part is: not a single lintian complaint has to be fixed because lintian says so. It's just a tool. Please join me in public embarrassment of those who write changelog entries saying “make Lintian happy”, etc. Lintian is not a deity to be appeased; it's a tool reporting that the package might need fixing for explicit *reasons*, formulated by fellow developers. The changelog entry for the fix should not even mention Lintian and should speak only to the reason given for the check. -- \ “What we usually pray to God is not that His will be done, but | `\ that He approve ours.” —Helga Bergold Gross | _o__) | Ben Finney pgp6Tj7NMZe46.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements (was: RFS: ampache (updated package))
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Please join me in public embarrassment of those who write changelog entries saying “make Lintian happy”, etc. Lintian is not a deity to be appeased; it's a tool reporting that the package might need fixing for explicit *reasons*, formulated by fellow developers. The changelog entry for the fix should not even mention Lintian and should speak only to the reason given for the check. Sounds like a target for a new lintian check ;) We are getting off-topic now, my apologies for starting that with my initial mail. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements (was: RFS: ampache (updated package))
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Please join me in public embarrassment of those who write changelog entries saying “make Lintian happy”, etc. Lintian is not a deity to be appeased; it's a tool reporting that the package might need fixing for explicit *reasons*, formulated by fellow developers. The changelog entry for the fix should not even mention Lintian and should speak only to the reason given for the check. Sounds like a target for a new lintian check ;) We are getting off-topic now, my apologies for starting that with my initial mail. If the discussion of lintian is finished would someone please sponsor ampache-themes (Hauke) http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/ampache-themes/ampache-themes_3.4.4-1.dsc Thank you Charlie Smotherman signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
On Wed, Oct 21 2009, Ben Finney wrote: Jan Hauke Rahm j...@debian.org writes: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 04:12:21AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: There is a time and a place where these lintian options are useful. They certainly have a place, and are recommended for experienced developers, and critical for helping to improve lintian. But one needs to know when to use them, and when not to bother. I think this approach is right for Lintian's experimental checks. They should be enabled only by those who want to improve Lintian by finding faults in the checks. I don't think it's right for the pedantic checks that are *not* experimental. If those are never used except by people who want to improve Lintian, then there seems to be little point. It is not I who made the comments about the quality of pedantic checks: Lintian authors have said: Pedantic tags are Lintian at its most pickiest and include checks for particular Debian packaging styles, checks that are very frequently wrong, and checks that many people disagree with. Expect false positives and Lintian tags that you don't consider useful if you use this option. Adding overrides for pedantic tags is probably not worth the effort. Th other point is: this is a forum for people new to Debian packaging. There such things as advanced topics; things not to do until you have some experience and can distinguish between things that are lacunae and things that are stylistic differences.With experience, one may tell the difference between false positives, and checks which are, in your opinion, just wrong and can be discarded. So applying this attitude to the Lintian pedantic checks seems to be an argument for not having them in Lintian at all. Err, no. Experienced developers might gain some benefit from this class of reports. They are in a separate class for a reason. I do not think inexperienced people need look at these, there is already information overload for novices, let them first gain the experience, and then go back an look at the pedantic tags and see which ones they need to change. manoj -- Well I don't see why I have to make one man miserable when I can make so many men happy. -- Ellyn Mustard, about marriage Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements (was: RFS: ampache (updated package))
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 08:14:54AM -0500, Charlie Smotherman wrote: On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Please join me in public embarrassment of those who write changelog entries saying “make Lintian happy”, etc. Lintian is not a deity to be appeased; it's a tool reporting that the package might need fixing for explicit *reasons*, formulated by fellow developers. The changelog entry for the fix should not even mention Lintian and should speak only to the reason given for the check. Sounds like a target for a new lintian check ;) We are getting off-topic now, my apologies for starting that with my initial mail. If the discussion of lintian is finished would someone please sponsor ampache-themes (Hauke) I hope you meant that *way* less sarcastic then it sounded to me... http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/ampache-themes/ampache-themes_3.4.4-1.dsc Thank you Charlie Smotherman Done. You're welcome. Hauke signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements (was: RFS: ampache (updated package))
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:27 +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 08:14:54AM -0500, Charlie Smotherman wrote: On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Please join me in public embarrassment of those who write changelog entries saying “make Lintian happy”, etc. Lintian is not a deity to be appeased; it's a tool reporting that the package might need fixing for explicit *reasons*, formulated by fellow developers. The changelog entry for the fix should not even mention Lintian and should speak only to the reason given for the check. Sounds like a target for a new lintian check ;) We are getting off-topic now, my apologies for starting that with my initial mail. If the discussion of lintian is finished would someone please sponsor ampache-themes (Hauke) I hope you meant that *way* less sarcastic then it sounded to me... No sarcasm or disrespect intended, I actually thought I was being respectful, and polite waiting for the discussion of lintian (which I found very helpful) to be over before I requested sponsoring of ampache-themes. My apologies if you were offended. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/a/ampache-themes/ampache-themes_3.4.4-1.dsc Best regards Charlie Smotherman signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements (was: RFS: ampache (updated package))
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 01:08:43PM -0500, Charlie Smotherman wrote: On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:27 +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 08:14:54AM -0500, Charlie Smotherman wrote: On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: Please join me in public embarrassment of those who write changelog entries saying “make Lintian happy”, etc. Lintian is not a deity to be appeased; it's a tool reporting that the package might need fixing for explicit *reasons*, formulated by fellow developers. The changelog entry for the fix should not even mention Lintian and should speak only to the reason given for the check. Sounds like a target for a new lintian check ;) We are getting off-topic now, my apologies for starting that with my initial mail. If the discussion of lintian is finished would someone please sponsor ampache-themes (Hauke) I hope you meant that *way* less sarcastic then it sounded to me... No sarcasm or disrespect intended, I actually thought I was being respectful, and polite waiting for the discussion of lintian (which I found very helpful) to be over before I requested sponsoring of ampache-themes. My apologies if you were offended. Blame my not being an english native speaker. :) Hauke signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
Charlie Smotherman cj...@cableone.net writes: No sarcasm or disrespect intended, I actually thought I was being respectful, and polite waiting for the discussion of lintian (which I found very helpful) to be over before I requested sponsoring of ampache-themes. There's no need to wait. The reason I changed the subject line was to allow discussion of the original thread to continue without confusion. Topic drift happens, and we need to deal with it rather than allowing it to impede discussion. Sadly, you then replied in this changed-topic thread, wanting to discuss the original topic; you would have done better to reply to a pre-topic-change message, making it clear what your message was about by its subject field. Perceiving messages in a discussion as a serial queue is less useful, and less natural, than thinking of them as a branching tree. My apologies if you were offended. No offense was taken that I'm aware of. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Uh, I think so, | `\ Brain, but we'll never get a monkey to use dental floss.” | _o__) —_Pinky and The Brain_ | Ben Finney pgpCbnW2MkMY5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes: Err, no. Experienced developers might gain some benefit from [pedantic] reports. They are in a separate class for a reason. I do not think inexperienced people need look at these, there is already information overload for novices, let them first gain the experience, and then go back an look at the pedantic tags and see which ones they need to change. Fair enough. I can see merit in that position, thanks for clarifying it. -- \ “Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.” | `\ —Henry L. Mencken | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
Pedantic tags are Lintian at its most pickiest and include checks for particular Debian packaging styles, *checks that are very frequently wrong*, and checks that many people disagree with. Expect false positives and Lintian tags that you don't consider useful if you use this option. Adding overrides for pedantic tags is probably not worth the effort. As the person who pushed and introduced pedantic support I always felt a bit hesitant regarding the highlighted statement, maybe I should bring this up on the lintian mailing list and ask Russ for his reasons behind it (maybe what he wanted to express could be paraphrased). If a check is wrong I don't think it should belong to the pedantic category, IMHO. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
