Bug#933109: package-supports-alternative-init-but-no-init.d-script produces too many false positives

Hi Francesco, > As I have [previously] said, this Lintian check should try hard to > be more accurate Agreed, I just did not find the time/bandwidth to do this until now... > Please improve this check soon: I would rather avoid having to > introduce a Lintian override into my package... I

Bug#933109: package-supports-alternative-init-but-no-init.d-script produces too many false positives

On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 16:56:23 -0300 "Chris Lamb" wrote: [...] > > Hi Michael, > > > The underlying issue is still that this test is currently way too > > primitive and produces too many false positives to be actually useful. > > In #931889 I already listed some cases, where those false-positives

Bug#931889: Bug#933109: package-supports-alternative-init-but-no-init.d-script produces too many false positives

[Adding 931...@bugs.debian.org to CC for visibility] Hi Michael, > The underlying issue is still that this test is currently way too > primitive and produces too many false positives to be actually useful. > In #931889 I already listed some cases, where those false-positives are > triggered.

Bug#933109: package-supports-alternative-init-but-no-init.d-script produces too many false positives

Package: lintian Version: 2.16.0 Severity: normal Hi, this is a follow-up to #931889. This bug report has been marked as fixed by downgrading the severity from important to minor. The underlying issue is still, that this test is currently way too primitive and produces too many false positives