Acknowledgement sent
to Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:09:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: lintian: pedantic warnings for additional QA checks
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 15:04:19 +0100
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.39
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
In the thread https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/12/msg00383.html, and specifically in
https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
there was a discussion about adding several pedantic warnings for:
qa-comaint_but_no_vcs.txt
qa-format_10.txt (3153 packages) (probably below than pedantic)
qa-helper_classic_debhelper.txt (3647 packages) (probably below than pedantic)
qa-helper_not_debhelper.txt (144 packages)
qa-patch_dpatch.txt (170 packages)
qa-patch_modified-files-outside-debian.txt (1156 packages)
qa-patch_more_than_one.txt (201 packages)
qa-patch_other.txt (51 packages)
qa-patch_quilt.txt (445 packages)
qa-patch_simple-patchsys.txt (129 packages)
qa-vcs_but_not_git_or_svn.txt (290 packages) (probably below than pedantic)
qa-vcs_more_than_one_declared_vcs.txt (1 package)
I'm not copying/summaryzing the discussion as it's still ongoing on -devel@.
- Lucas
-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'stable-updates'), (400, 'stable'), (300, 'unstable'), (150, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386, armhf
Kernel: Linux 4.3.0-rc7-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
Versions of packages lintian depends on:
ii binutils 2.25.90.20151209-1
ii bzip2 1.0.6-8
ii diffstat 1.60-1
ii file 1:5.25-2
ii gettext 0.19.6-1
ii hardening-includes 2.8+nmu2
ii intltool-debian 0.35.0+20060710.4
ii libapt-pkg-perl 0.1.29+b4
ii libarchive-zip-perl 1.55-1
ii libclass-accessor-perl 0.34-1
ii libclone-perl 0.38-1
ii libdpkg-perl 1.18.3
ii libemail-valid-perl 1.198-1
ii libfile-basedir-perl 0.07-1
ii libipc-run-perl 0.94-1
ii liblist-moreutils-perl 0.413-1
ii libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-8
ii libtext-levenshtein-perl 0.13-1
ii libtimedate-perl 2.3000-2
ii liburi-perl 1.69-1
ii man-db 2.7.5-1
ii patchutils 0.3.4-1
ii perl [libdigest-sha-perl] 5.20.2-6
ii t1utils 1.38-4
ii xz-utils 5.1.1alpha+20120614-2.1
Versions of packages lintian recommends:
ii dpkg 1.18.3
ii libperlio-gzip-perl 0.19-1
ii perl 5.20.2-6
ii perl-modules [libautodie-perl] 5.20.2-6
Versions of packages lintian suggests:
pn binutils-multiarch <none>
ii dpkg-dev 1.18.3
ii libhtml-parser-perl 3.71-2
ii libtext-template-perl 1.46-1
ii libyaml-perl 1.15-1
-- no debconf information
Acknowledgement sent
to Chris Lamb <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:03:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: lintian: pedantic warnings for additional QA checks
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:00:11 +0000
clone 809226 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7
retitle -1 lintian: Pedantic check for co-maintained packages with no Vcs-* fields
retitle -2 lintian: Pedantic check for source format 1.0 packages
retitle -3 lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS
retitle -4 lintian: Pedantic check for packages using dpatch
retitle -5 lintian: Pedantic check for packages using simple-patchsys
retitle -6 lintian: Pedantic check for packages modifying files outside of debian/
retitle -7 lintian: Check for packages using more than VCS in Vcs-{Git,Browser}
thanks
Splitting these. Some were supersets of others so skipping those.
Changed Bug title to 'lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS' from 'lintian: pedantic warnings for additional QA checks'.
Request was from Chris Lamb <[email protected]>
to [email protected].
(Fri, 15 Dec 2017 22:03:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Acknowledgement sent
to Chris Lamb <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Sat, 05 May 2018 16:45:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS
Date: Sat, 05 May 2018 17:43:26 +0100
tags 884499 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi,
> lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS
I'm in two minds about this. Whilst I would like everyone to use such
things, as it was pointed out recently Lintian tags should always be
actionable.
If one's personal style was not to use debhelper or CDBS then this
would simply be overly-didactic or annoying, leading to folks
ignoring Lintian in the future.
Any thoughts?
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` [email protected] / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Acknowledgement sent
to Chris Lamb <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Sat, 05 May 2018 16:51:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS
Date: Sat, 05 May 2018 17:48:06 +0100
Chris Lamb wrote:
> > lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS
We actually already have this as a classification tag of sorts in
checks/debhelper.pm:
if (%build_systems) {
my @systems = sort(keys(%build_systems));
tag 'debian-build-system', join(', ', @systems);
} else {
tag 'debian-build-system', 'other';
}
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` [email protected] / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Acknowledgement sent
to Chris Lamb <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Sat, 05 May 2018 18:45:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Source: lintian
Source-Version: 2.5.85
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
lintian, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to [email protected],
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Chris Lamb <[email protected]> (supplier of updated lintian package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing [email protected])
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 05 May 2018 23:31:53 +0000
Source: lintian
Binary: lintian
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.5.85
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>
Changed-By: Chris Lamb <[email protected]>
Description:
lintian - Debian package checker
Closes: 884499892304896671896675896840897082897157897166897213897244897248897402897424897638897639897692897915
Changes:
lintian (2.5.85) unstable; urgency=medium
.
* Summary of tag changes:
+ Added:
- ancient-python-version-field
- changed-by-invalid-for-derivative
- old-python-version-field
- package-does-not-use-debhelper-or-cdbs
.
* checks/{binaries,shared-libs.pm}:
+ [CL] Update shared object detection for file >= 5.33 as this version
will identify shared objects as a "pie executable" or "shared object"
depending on the file's executable bit. Thanks to Paul Gevers, Doug
Freed, Christoph Biedl & Mattia Rizzolo. (Closes: #896840)
* checks/changelog-file.pm:
+ [CL] Prevent false-positives in the non-consecutive-debian-revision
and possible-new-upstream-release-without-new-version tags by
skipping them if the source package was renamed. Thanks to Andreas
Beckmann for the report. (Closes: #896675)
+ [CL] Include the offending version numbers in the output of the
non-consecutive-debian-revision tag.
* checks/cruft.pm:
+ [CL] Make the file-contains-trailing-whitespace tag also emit for
whitespace at end of files.
+ [CL] Drop now-misleading comment regarding trailing whitespace
filenames being relative.
+ [CL] Also allow /usr/share/doc/$pkg/examples to be a symlink when
checking for packages that ship examples. Thanks to Rafael
Laboissière for the report. (Closes: #897157)
* checks/copyright-file.pm:
+ [CL] Disable the duplicate word "spelling" detection in copyright
files to their extensive use of headings and other structures causing
false positives. Thanks, Stuart Prescott. (Closes: #897402)
* checks/debhelper.{pm,desc}:
+ [CL] Don't use $. out-of-context when reporting on dh --parallel.
+ [CL] Add a pedantic warning for packages that do not use debhelper or
CDBS. (Closes: #884499)
* checks/description.pm:
+ [CL] Rework the description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly
tag to ensure we do not cause false-positives for literal "e.g.",
"eg.", ellipsis ("..."), "etc.", splitting out the tests to make
it clearer and to catch some other corner cases. Thanks to Andreas
Beckmann for the detailed report. (Closes: #896671)
+ [CL] Include the synopsis itself for context, etc. when emitting the
description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly tag.
* checks/fields.pm:
+ [CL] Correct a default-mta-dependency-not-listed-first false-
positive where we incorrect emitted the tag for, e.g.
"Depends: a, default-mta | b". (Closes: #897166)
+ [CL] Fix orphaned-package-not-maintained-in-debian-infrastructure
false positives for https://git.dgit.debian.org Vcs-* fields.
Thanks to Thorsten Alteholz for the report. (Closes: #897915)
* checks/menus.pm:
+ [CL] Also look in a package's dependencies for files listed in a
doc-base control file. (Closes: #897244)
* checks/patch-systems.pm:
+ [CL] Ignore templated ".in" files in debian/patches for the
patch-file-present-but-not-mentioned-in-series tag.
* checks/python.{desc,pm}:
+ [CL] Mark dependency-on-python-version-marked-for-end-of-life as
"experimental" and with a "pedantic" severity, thus essentially
hiding it from all Lintian users yet allowing us to continue to
continue collect statistics and making it easier to re-introduce
after the release of buster. (Closes: #897213)
+ [CL] Migrate the malformed-python-version and
python-version-current-is-deprecated tags from fields.pm, refactor
to use $info->source_field over $info->field, include the
offending field name in the output, and also warn about the Python
3.x variant of this field.
+ [CL] Warn about ancient and old X-Python{,3}-Version fields. Thanks
to Scott Kitterman. (Closes: #892304)
* checks/watch-file.desc:
+ [CL] Update description of debian-watch-uses-insecure-uri to clarify
what to do if there is currently no secure URI. Thanks to Andreas
Tille for the report. (Closes: #897082)
.
* collection/src-orig-index:
+ [CL] Pass --full-date to tar(1) to ensure that we get a consistent
output in the presence of spaces in other fields. (Closes: #897248)
+ [CL] Pass --utc to tar(1) to ensure reproducible date parsing.
.
* data/java/constants:
+ [CL] Apply patches from Bas Couwenberg to update the bytecode checks
for OpenJDK 10 add bytecode number for OpenJDK 11. (Closes: #897424)
* data/fields/perl-provides:
+ [CL] Update for Perl 5.026002.
* data/files/python-generic-modules:
+ [CL] Add "scripts" and "script" to the list of overly generic Python
module names. Thanks, Andreas Beckmann. (Closes: #897692)
* data/spelling/corrections:
+ [CL] Add a "CBDS" → "CDBS" correction.
+ [CL] Add a "DSFG" → "DFSG" correction.
+ [PW] Add a number of corrections.
.
* doc/releases.md:
+ [CL] Clarify that we should add an extra bit of whitespace for
annotated release tags.
.
* lib/Lintian/Check.pm:
+ [CL] Add support for derivative-specific "Changed-By" validation to
enforce additional restrictions on the uploader.
* lib/Lintian/Collect/Package.pm:
+ [CL] croak() a meaningful message we cannot parse an index data line.
.
* t/tests/*:
+ [CL] Apply patch from Adam Conrad adding "-Wl,--no-as-needed" to fix
testsuite failures with Ubuntu's ld(1). (Closes: #897639)
+ [CL] Correct the "files-" (should be "fields-") prefix of the
files-orphaned-package-not-maintained-in-debian-infrastructure test.
.
* vendors/ubuntu/main/data/changes-file/known-dists:
+ [CL] Apply patch from Adam Conrad to add cosmic as a known Ubuntu
distribution. (Closes: #897638)
Checksums-Sha1:
60782aebffcd5cf931fcbe26133ee6cd770f46aa 3511 lintian_2.5.85.dsc
2869bef7a0aaa4cc8267a3382c7aafc166d08bb3 1558352 lintian_2.5.85.tar.xz
da8125f4f7d0036b59dfdd2a2024566684b32ad4 1119656 lintian_2.5.85_all.deb
7ddb746e0686b660e5afc5a3d172b3299f95fe15 16200 lintian_2.5.85_amd64.buildinfo
Checksums-Sha256:
df24c8d65d16edca1826cf5f87f5b3eb1c6d63f4a7f79e4706fa2a08c2d0d59e 3511 lintian_2.5.85.dsc
bd299b914b86ed39fdf61c259bef51fccfffd70d87be64d2a8156f8b32c8a365 1558352 lintian_2.5.85.tar.xz
f983340231677519b165554970d24fcbe573d363be1beb72ef425de5e0a43314 1119656 lintian_2.5.85_all.deb
81a2875c455830084bfc16c099653de666a1012c86167a0f9202f697b1dcb879 16200 lintian_2.5.85_amd64.buildinfo
Files:
f9b5d5c26962ec3c93fd170584c876aa 3511 devel optional lintian_2.5.85.dsc
9ef2eeeb1e049e8ce0c5d9ef12311d29 1558352 devel optional lintian_2.5.85.tar.xz
66e4d7ddf5b59af55ff602053dbfc707 1119656 devel optional lintian_2.5.85_all.deb
5964554e2c9386130178f212ade06590 16200 devel optional lintian_2.5.85_amd64.buildinfo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=oxfj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Acknowledgement sent
to Scott Kitterman <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Sun, 06 May 2018 05:45:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS
Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 05:40:24 +0000
On Sat, 05 May 2018 19:42:05 +0100 Chris Lamb <[email protected]> wrote:
> tags 884499 + pending
> thanks
>
> Actually, let's give this a whirl. Implemented in Git,
> pending upload:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/commit/1ecc761fea7b22f85faf400ac134d24438454e4d
>
> checks/debhelper.desc | 12 +++++++++++
> checks/debhelper.pm | 5 ++++-
> debian/changelog | 4 +++-
> .../debian/debian/control.in | 14 +++++++++++++
> .../debian/debian/rules | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> .../desc | 6 ++++++
> .../tags | 2 ++
> 7 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
For what it's worth, this is an example of the kind of check that isn't supported by policy. There's absolutely no requirement to use debhelper or CDBS, so it's not clear why lintian should have care.
There is nothing to fix based on this tag. I know most won't see it since it's pedantic, but it isn't clear why it should exist at all.
Scott K
Acknowledgement sent
to Chris Lamb <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 07 May 2018 00:24:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper
or CDBS
Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 01:20:04 +0100
Hi Scott,
> For what it's worth, this is an example of the kind of check that isn't
> supported by policy.
I'm not quite following your chain of logic wrt to Lintian and Debian
Policy. I mean, there are countless checks in Lintian that have no
basis in Policy? :)
(100% agree that there is no requirement whatsoever to use debhelper
or CDBS and I have a great deal of sympatahy with you position on
this tag. Indeed, I can quite possibly see myself removing this tag
at a later date.)
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` [email protected] / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Acknowledgement sent
to Scott Kitterman <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 07 May 2018 00:30:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS
Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 00:26:31 +0000
On May 7, 2018 12:20:04 AM UTC, Chris Lamb <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Scott,
>
>> For what it's worth, this is an example of the kind of check that
>isn't
>> supported by policy.
>
>I'm not quite following your chain of logic wrt to Lintian and Debian
>Policy. I mean, there are countless checks in Lintian that have no
>basis in Policy? :)
>
>(100% agree that there is no requirement whatsoever to use debhelper
>or CDBS and I have a great deal of sympatahy with you position on
>this tag. Indeed, I can quite possibly see myself removing this tag
>at a later date.)
Back in the debate about the python2 check (thanks for fixing), I made the point that not all lintian checks are created equal. Some represent serious package defects that needs to be addressed and some merely reflect the lintian maintainer's opinion on what should be tracked and it's entirely up to the maintainer to decide if any action is needed.
This is one of the latter. I worry about this class of tag because some people view a lintian 'clean' package as an important goal when it's not universally. One needs to look at what lintian is reporting and evaluate it. Not everyone does a great job of that and so unintended consequences arise.
Scott K
Acknowledgement sent
to Russ Allbery <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 07 May 2018 01:09:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS
Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 18:07:04 -0700
Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> writes:
> Back in the debate about the python2 check (thanks for fixing), I made
> the point that not all lintian checks are created equal. Some represent
> serious package defects that needs to be addressed and some merely
> reflect the lintian maintainer's opinion on what should be tracked and
> it's entirely up to the maintainer to decide if any action is needed.
> This is one of the latter.
Which is why it's pedantic, no? Speaking as the person who merged
Raphael's patch to introduce pedantic, that's precisely what pedantic
*means*.
> I worry about this class of tag because some people view a lintian
> 'clean' package as an important goal when it's not universally. One
> needs to look at what lintian is reporting and evaluate it. Not
> everyone does a great job of that and so unintended consequences arise.
In the lintian man page:
Pedantic tags are Lintian at its most pickiest and include checks for
particular Debian packaging styles and checks that many people
disagree with. Expect false positives and Lintian tags that you don't
consider useful if you use this option.
I'm not sure how one could possibly be more clear. If one's definition of
lintian-clean includes --pedantic, one's definition of lintian-clean is,
well, wrong.
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Acknowledgement sent
to Chris Lamb <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 07 May 2018 01:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper
or CDBS
Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 02:17:44 +0100
Hi Russ & Scott,
> I'm not sure how one could possibly be more clear. If one's definition of
> lintian-clean includes --pedantic, one's definition of lintian-clean is,
> well, wrong.
There is no doubt that you are absolutely right in a technical sense
and maintainers should not be using --pedantic in this way.
However, my experience with being an author of a handful of static
analysis tools is that people have a slight tendency to delegate
thinking to the computer's output. The addition of an objective
target (ie. zero output) only encourages our post-lapsarian brains to
make poor, err, compromises.
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the angle Scott was
pushing. :)
How could we make --pedantic more useful/obvious/something?
Ironically, if it were less useful in a strict sense — for example,
if we moved some P: tags to I: — it would get less incorrect usage. :p
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` [email protected] / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Acknowledgement sent
to Russ Allbery <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 07 May 2018 01:30:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS
Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 18:26:36 -0700
Chris Lamb <[email protected]> writes:
> However, my experience with being an author of a handful of static
> analysis tools is that people have a slight tendency to delegate
> thinking to the computer's output. The addition of an objective target
> (ie. zero output) only encourages our post-lapsarian brains to make
> poor, err, compromises.
> Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the angle Scott was
> pushing. :)
> How could we make --pedantic more useful/obvious/something? Ironically,
> if it were less useful in a strict sense — for example, if we moved some
> P: tags to I: — it would get less incorrect usage. :p
My modest proposal, and this is going to sound nuts so bear with me for a
moment, would be to make it impossible to get pedantic tags and regular
tags at the same time. If you use --pedantic, suppress all other tags.
This problem stems from the fact that people are using Lintian as if
pickier is better, and the deeper they go into Lintian's settings while
keeping the package clear of any output, the better the package is. And
that's true, up to a point -- moving from error to warning is certainly
significant, and moving from warning to info is probably significant.
But pedantic was a collection of tags that were mostly designed for a far
different purpose: you run them on a package to ask for a set of things
that might be out of step with common best practices or that you may want
to consider changing if you've not touched the package in years. It's
much more of a one-time thing. You run it, you look at the tags and read
the descriptions (I would argue that --pedantic is basically useless
without --info, and perhaps --pedantic should force --info, particularly
if one implements my modest proposal), you decide which ones make sense
and which ones don't, and then you fix the ones you like and move on with
your life.
Lintian has emitted pedantic warnings about some of my packages for not
having an upstream changelog for literally years. This is never going to
be fixed; upstream is not going to make a changelog, and I'm not going to
make an artificial one. The correct disposition of that tag is for me to
ignore it completely, *but it's still useful* for new packages when I'm
doing initial packaging and may have forgotten to include the right
debhelper command to copy over upstream's unconventionally-named
changelog.
If we *force* people to not treat --pedantic the same as other severity
levels and *force* it to be a separate pass that you only run in specific
situations, maybe this will finally get through to people, since arguing
with people in debian-mentors that they're using Lintian wrong doesn't
seem to be working.
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Acknowledgement sent
to Scott Kitterman <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 07 May 2018 01:45:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS
Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 01:43:46 +0000
On May 7, 2018 1:26:36 AM UTC, Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
>Chris Lamb <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> However, my experience with being an author of a handful of static
>> analysis tools is that people have a slight tendency to delegate
>> thinking to the computer's output. The addition of an objective
>target
>> (ie. zero output) only encourages our post-lapsarian brains to make
>> poor, err, compromises.
>
>> Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the angle Scott was
>> pushing. :)
>
>> How could we make --pedantic more useful/obvious/something?
>Ironically,
>> if it were less useful in a strict sense — for example, if we moved
>some
>> P: tags to I: — it would get less incorrect usage. :p
>
>My modest proposal, and this is going to sound nuts so bear with me for
>a
>moment, would be to make it impossible to get pedantic tags and regular
>tags at the same time. If you use --pedantic, suppress all other tags.
>
>This problem stems from the fact that people are using Lintian as if
>pickier is better, and the deeper they go into Lintian's settings while
>keeping the package clear of any output, the better the package is.
>And
>that's true, up to a point -- moving from error to warning is certainly
>significant, and moving from warning to info is probably significant.
>
>But pedantic was a collection of tags that were mostly designed for a
>far
>different purpose: you run them on a package to ask for a set of things
>that might be out of step with common best practices or that you may
>want
>to consider changing if you've not touched the package in years. It's
>much more of a one-time thing. You run it, you look at the tags and
>read
>the descriptions (I would argue that --pedantic is basically useless
>without --info, and perhaps --pedantic should force --info,
>particularly
>if one implements my modest proposal), you decide which ones make sense
>and which ones don't, and then you fix the ones you like and move on
>with
>your life.
>
>Lintian has emitted pedantic warnings about some of my packages for not
>having an upstream changelog for literally years. This is never going
>to
>be fixed; upstream is not going to make a changelog, and I'm not going
>to
>make an artificial one. The correct disposition of that tag is for me
>to
>ignore it completely, *but it's still useful* for new packages when I'm
>doing initial packaging and may have forgotten to include the right
>debhelper command to copy over upstream's unconventionally-named
>changelog.
>
>If we *force* people to not treat --pedantic the same as other severity
>levels and *force* it to be a separate pass that you only run in
>specific
>situations, maybe this will finally get through to people, since
>arguing
>with people in debian-mentors that they're using Lintian wrong doesn't
>seem to be working.
I think this is an excellent idea.
Thanks,
Scott K
Acknowledgement sent
to Chris Lamb <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 07 May 2018 01:51:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper
or CDBS
Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 02:46:45 +0100
Hi Russ,
> My modest proposal, and this is going to sound nuts so bear with me for a
> moment, would be to make it impossible to get pedantic tags and regular
> tags at the same time. If you use --pedantic, suppress all other tags.
Ooh, now that's an interesting concept. :) Let me run that over in my
mind for a few days..
Y'know, I think we could make it even more effective if we renamed --
pedantic at the same time. This would have the benefits of a)
highlighting the change of semantics and b) we could perhaps choose a
name that does not imply it is "just" another level of pickiness…
Almost to the point of "lintian --give-me-possible-things-to-consider"
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` [email protected] / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Acknowledgement sent
to Russ Allbery <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 07 May 2018 02:00:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS
Date: Sun, 06 May 2018 18:57:35 -0700
Chris Lamb <[email protected]> writes:
> Y'know, I think we could make it even more effective if we renamed --
> pedantic at the same time. This would have the benefits of a)
> highlighting the change of semantics and b) we could perhaps choose a
> name that does not imply it is "just" another level of pickiness…
> Almost to the point of "lintian --give-me-possible-things-to-consider"
Yeah, I was cringing over the break in backward-compatibility in my
original proposal, so I think something like this plus a deprecation
warning on --pedantic while making it do nothing would be friendlier.
lintian --suggestions, maybe?
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Acknowledgement sent
to Chris Lamb <[email protected]>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>.
(Mon, 07 May 2018 03:09:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Subject: Re: Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper
or CDBS
Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 04:06:36 +0100
clone 884499 -1
retitle -1 lintian: Alter the semantics (etc.) of --pedantic?
severity -1 wishlist
tags -1 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi Russ
> […]
At the very least lets not lose this conversation in a somewhat-
unrelated bug, hence cloning etc. Tagging as "moreinfo" for now.
> lintian --suggestions, maybe?
Well, I was trying to avoid the early bikeshedding on the name, more
trying to capture the different essence. :)
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` [email protected] / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Changed Bug title to 'lintian: Alter the semantics (etc.) of --pedantic?' from 'lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS'.
Request was from Chris Lamb <[email protected]>
to [email protected].
(Mon, 07 May 2018 03:09:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).
Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU General
Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained
from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/.