Bug#922531: lintian: Please make package-uses-vendor-specific-patch-series Debian-archive specific
Hi Guillem, > > Or perhaps not emit this tag for "local" packages (via the > > versioning scheme?) > > I'm not sure there's any reliable way to distinguish those? I think > most people even tend to use the defaul target distribution from dch, > and use normal looking versions for local packages. dch(1) has: --local, -lsuffix Add a suffix to the Debian version number for a local build. ... which might be legitimate to ask people to use so that Lintian ignores it. But before we spend more energy here instead of on other things; are there many concrete people actually complaining about this? If so, where? > Creating the profiles is rather easy, the above would be a simple > example of that, and can be placed either system-wide or on each > user's home. The problem is that this needs to be deployed on each > user/CI/build system Nod, indeed. Including, for example, GitLab instances, etc. etc. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#922531: lintian: Please make package-uses-vendor-specific-patch-series Debian-archive specific
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:16:56 +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > > The problem with emitting this tag unconditionally, even within the > > Debian-vendor realm, is that people create local packages for their > > own, or for $work, etc. > > Hmm. Emitting such a tag here still seems right to me, or at least > when balanced with the downsides. The local package will never > reach "dak prime" by definition, after all, and the maintainer can > simply override the warning if they so wish (and do not use a > vendor). The problem with this is that a warning (now) or a non-overridable error (in the future) are rather scary looking, and even harder to override as the latter does require a custom vendor profile. :( Something like the following untested one: ,--- Profile: vendor/main Extends: debian/main Disable-Tags: package-uses-vendor-specific-patch-series, `--- Which would of course still trigger on other systems w/o that vendor profile. This is compounded with the fact that there's still no clear distinction between what is the core specification of the packaging system and what's (possibly arbitrary) Debian-specific policy (which I'm trying to fix slowly from the dpkg side by documenting the first part within dpkg itself, but still), and that the tag description does not help either as it seems misleading to me. :/ > > in most cases will not go to the trouble of creating a new vendor for this. > > I wonder if part of the solution might be to make this bit easier? Creating the profiles is rather easy, the above would be a simple example of that, and can be placed either system-wide or on each user's home. The problem is that this needs to be deployed on each user/CI/build system that is going to have to deal with those. That's why I think the "presence" of the tag is inverted here, for something that really feels should only be emitted within the confines of the Debian (and Ubuntu) archives. > Or perhaps not emit this tag for "local" packages (via the > versioning scheme?) I'm not sure there's any reliable way to distinguish those? I think most people even tend to use the defaul target distribution from dch, and use normal looking versions for local packages. But maybe you had something else in mind? Thanks, Guillem
Bug#922531: lintian: Please make package-uses-vendor-specific-patch-series Debian-archive specific
Hi Guillem, > The problem with emitting this tag unconditionally, even within the > Debian-vendor realm, is that people create local packages for their > own, or for $work, etc. Hmm. Emitting such a tag here still seems right to me, or at least when balanced with the downsides. The local package will never reach "dak prime" by definition, after all, and the maintainer can simply override the warning if they so wish (and do not use a vendor). > in most cases will not go to the trouble of creating a new vendor for this. I wonder if part of the solution might be to make this bit easier? Or perhaps not emit this tag for "local" packages (via the versioning scheme?) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#922531: lintian: Please make package-uses-vendor-specific-patch-series Debian-archive specific
Hi! On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:41:19 +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > > So, I'd appreciate very much to see this tag emitted exclusively when > > running lintian on lintian.d.o and Debian's ftp-master […] but not when > > running locally > Whilst I have not seen Ubuntu folks complain about this tag being > emitted by Lintian I can understand the request to not run it on > Ubuntu (etc.). As I tried to convey in the parts that got elided, I do think the Ubuntu folks would definitely want to have this tag be kept emitting for their archive. That's at least what I gathered from their support in the original policy bug. > However, I do not follow why a Debian maintainer maintaining Debian > packages should not see this when running Lintian locally, both in > principle and in practice; it would be confusing for it to only > appear on lintian.d.o and, for example, *I* would want to be > alerted of this prior to an upload. Right, and sorry, should have expanded on that. This is something I also pondered, and I realize it would be slighly annoying to discover that a package gets (eventually, which I think is the intention) rejected only after the upload. But, this will get you a mail with the reason, and this should happen only once (in theory :). Having the packages not emit warnings right now would also be inconvenient, but the number of users within the Debian archive is low enough that a bug filing should be fine before the more severe rejects get deployed after buster is released. At worst the maintainers would find out once they upload after the rejects are in place, which does not seem too bad either. The problem with emitting this tag unconditionally, even within the Debian-vendor realm, is that people create local packages for their own, or for $work, etc., and in most cases will not go to the trouble of creating a new vendor for this. And emitting such tag for a decision that should only be getting applied within the Debian (and Ubuntu) archives does not seem right? > Lintian supports dpkg-vendor - can we not just add an exception to > the Ubuntu vendor-specific profile? As mentioned above, this really has nothing to do with Ubuntu, as in they should be kept having the same treatment as the Debian archive. Thanks, Guillem
Bug#922531: lintian: Please make package-uses-vendor-specific-patch-series Debian-archive specific
tags 922531 + moreinfo thanks Hi Guillem, > As the maintainer of dpkg, I [..] I note your dislike of the decision that was reached by the CTTE in #904302. I will pass no comment on it either way. > So, I'd appreciate very much to see this tag emitted exclusively when > running lintian on lintian.d.o and Debian's ftp-master […] but not when > running locally Whilst I have not seen Ubuntu folks complain about this tag being emitted by Lintian I can understand the request to not run it on Ubuntu (etc.). However, I do not follow why a Debian maintainer maintaining Debian packages should not see this when running Lintian locally, both in principle and in practice; it would be confusing for it to only appear on lintian.d.o and, for example, *I* would want to be alerted of this prior to an upload. Lintian supports dpkg-vendor - can we not just add an exception to the Ubuntu vendor-specific profile? Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#922531: lintian: Please make package-uses-vendor-specific-patch-series Debian-archive specific
Package: lintian Version: 2.7.0 Severity: wishlist Hi! As the maintainer of dpkg, I do not agree at all (well I'd go as far as to consider them to be just bogus :) with the rationale and conclusions that were arrived to get the package-uses-vendor-specific-patch-series tag implemented. But the above is sadly besides the point here, given the authority that was wielded to force this through. The reach of this tag should have been exclusively up to the Debian archive, and not apply to any local runs, or derivatives, etc. So, I'd appreciate very much to see this tag emitted exclusively when running lintian on lintian.d.o and Debian's ftp-master (possibly for Ubuntu too, given their complaints) as part of its acceptance checks. But not when running locally or for any other derivatives, because both dpkg and lintian are used beyond Debian, where that ruling should have no reach. Thanks, Guillem
