Hi Andreas,
On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:27 AM Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>
> I produces false positives on packages with non-trivial rules files that
> cannot use the catch-all wildcard
Explicit targets are now allowed via:
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 22:39:34 -0800 Felix Lechner
wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:27 AM Sam Hartman wrote:
> >
> > Based on that I think we'd like lintian to detect when dh is not used
> > and allow maintainers to override the tag if they have an adequate
> > justification for
Hi Sam,
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:27 AM Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> Based on that I think we'd like lintian to detect when dh is not used
> and allow maintainers to override the tag if they have an adequate
> justification for not using dh.
I tentatively added a new tag called 'no-dh-sequencer' to
> "Felix" == Felix Lechner writes:
Felix> Hi Sam,
Felix> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:45 AM Sam Hartman
wrote:
>>
>> I'd recommend starting out with warning. Some day it might move
>> to error, but I think starting out there would be overly
>> aggressive.
Felix>
Hi Sam,
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 8:45 AM Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> I'd recommend starting out with warning. Some day it might move to
> error, but I think starting out there would be overly aggressive.
Can we please make it an I: tag first? A Lintian warning may unleash
an angry mob on us. After a
> "Chris" == Chris Lamb writes:
Chris> (Tagging moreinfo as appropriate.)
I'm assuming that you're arguing that the lintian maintainers should
supply this more info.
Deciding on stuff like this seems well outside what I should be expected
to do as someone writing up a consensus from
> "Chris" == Chris Lamb writes:
Chris> (Oh, it is not clear to me why you would mention DPL or
Chris> disavow being a Lintian maintainer; I addressed my question
Chris> to you as you filed this bug, not in any other context or
Chris> mode? I mention it in case I can missing
Mattia Rizzolo:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:05:23PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> Somewhat related, but if we introduce this mooted "package-does-not-
>> use- dh-sequencer" we need to work out what to do with:
>>
>> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/package-does-not-use-debhelper-or-cdbs.html
>>
>>
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:05:23PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Somewhat related, but if we introduce this mooted "package-does-not-
> use- dh-sequencer" we need to work out what to do with:
>
> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/package-does-not-use-debhelper-or-cdbs.html
>
> One thing we can
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 930679 + moreinfo
Bug #930679 [lintian] Please add tag for not using dh sequencer
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
930679:
tags 930679 + moreinfo
thanks
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Can you elaborate why you think it would not make a lot of sense? Tags
> with "I:"-level severity get a lot of visibility and people make
> substantive changes if they see them. And, sardonically-speaking, the
> Lintian maintainers get reports
Sam Hartman wrote:
> Chris> My experience of Lintian suggests that W: would be too strong
> Chris> to start with. Sam, would you be okay with "I:" to begin
> Chris> with?
[…]
> I personally don't think this makes a lot of sense as an i: tag, but
> that's not my call to make.
Can you
control: tags -1 -moreinfo
> "Chris" == Chris Lamb writes:
Chris> I mean we could certainly just whitelist all of
Chris> src:haskell-*, but isn't the entire point of this tag to ask
Chris> people to move to the dh sequencer? Or is it "actually fine"
Chris> for them to use
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 -moreinfo
Bug #930679 [lintian] Please add tag for not using dh sequencer
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
--
930679: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=930679
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
On Sat, Aug 03, 2019 at 07:36:23PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Anyway, CCing d-haskell@ for input as well.
I think it would be fine to switch to a resurrected-and-fixed or
written-from-scratch replacement of dh-haskell, especially since cdbs
seems to be bitrotting.
Who's going to expend the
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019, 5:57 pm Chris Lamb, wrote:
> So, Haskell packages use cdbs calling into a
> Haskell-specific hlibrary.mk.
>
> I mean we could certainly just whitelist all of src:haskell-*, but
> isn't the entire point of this tag to ask people to move to the dh
> sequencer? Or is it
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 930679 + moreinfo
Bug #930679 [lintian] Please add overridable tag for not using dh sequencer
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
930679: https://bugs.debian.org/c
tags 930679 + moreinfo
thanks
Felix Lechner wrote:
> > > It would be even better to detect some of the adequate justifications
> > > automatically like Haskell packages.
>
> I think Sam meant that some circumstances should always prevent the
> issuance of the tag, so developers are not
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 -moreinfo
Bug #930679 [lintian] Please add overridable tag for not using dh sequencer
Removed tag(s) moreinfo.
--
930679: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=930679
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
control: tags -1 -moreinfo
> a) Name of this tag (eg. "package-does-not-use-dh")
That seems like a fine name
> b) The "long description" of the tag with a brief rationale,
references, etc.
The recommended way to implement the build process of a Debian package,
in the absence of a good
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 8:00 AM Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> tags 930679 + moreinfo
> thanks
>
> Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> > It would be even better to detect some of the adequate justifications
> > automatically like Haskell packages.
I think Sam meant that some circumstances should always prevent the
I think that before providing a long description I'd like to see where
the policy process gets. As DPL I think it's fine for me to put issues
onto people's radars based on project-level discussions as part of my
facilitator role. I'm less comfortable proposing things like a long
description in
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 930679 + moreinfo
Bug #930679 [lintian] Please add overridable tag for not using dh sequencer
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #930679 to the same tags previously set
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if yo
tags 930679 + moreinfo
thanks
Sam Hartman wrote:
> […] we'd like lintian to detect when dh is not used […]
Just in case you or -policy was unaware, please note that Lintian
actually currently warns — albeit at a pedantic level — when a
package uses neither cdbs nor debhelper:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 930679 + moreinfo
Bug #930679 [lintian] Please add overridable tag for not using dh sequencer
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
930679: https://bugs.debian.org/c
tags 930679 + moreinfo
thanks
Sam Hartman wrote:
> […] we'd like lintian to detect when dh is not used […]
Just in case you or -policy was unaware, please note that Lintian
actually currently warns — albeit at a pedantic level — when a
package uses neither cdbs nor debhelper:
package: lintian
severity: wishlist
Hi.
In
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/tslmuif7pwy@suchdamage.org
I document a consensus of a discussion we had on debian-devel.
Based on that I think we'd like lintian to detect when dh is not used
and allow maintainers to override the tag if they
27 matches
Mail list logo
