Debian Bug report logs - #898091
lintian: Alter the semantics (etc.) of --pedantic?

version graph

Package: lintian; Maintainer for lintian is Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>; Source for lintian is src:lintian (PTS, buildd, popcon).

Reported by: Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]>

Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:09:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: moreinfo

Found in version lintian/2.5.39

Full log


🔗 View this message in rfc822 format

X-Loop: [email protected]
Subject: Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS
Reply-To: Scott Kitterman <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Resent-From: Scott Kitterman <[email protected]>
Resent-To: [email protected]
Resent-CC: Debian Lintian Maintainers <[email protected]>
X-Loop: [email protected]
Resent-Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 00:30:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Resent-Sender: [email protected]
X-Debian-PR-Message: followup 884499
X-Debian-PR-Package: lintian
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: moreinfo
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <1525652404.3835408.1362876960.64A81F13@webmail.messagingengine.com> <[email protected]>
X-Debian-PR-Source: lintian
Received: via spool by [email protected] id=B884499.152565280013178
          (code B ref 884499); Mon, 07 May 2018 00:30:02 +0000
Received: (at 884499) by bugs.debian.org; 7 May 2018 00:26:40 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
	(2015-04-28) on buxtehude.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.4 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FOURLA,HAS_BUG_NUMBER,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 15; hammy, 146; neutral, 56; spammy,
	2. spammytokens:0.933-+--view, 0.865-+--Policy hammytokens:0.000-+--Lintian,
	0.000-+--U*lamby, 0.000-+--sk:lamby@d, 0.000-+--sk:lambyd,
	[email protected]
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com ([2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2])
	by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <[email protected]>)
	id 1fFTzE-0003QK-AV
	for [email protected]; Mon, 07 May 2018 00:26:40 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; 
 [email protected]; q=dns/txt; s=201803e; t=1525652795; 
 h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : 
 content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : 
 from : message-id : date : subject : from; 
 bh=y//EG8cuZXkAofOY+f4DpBOyUKgpWAB/YrKK2e9HtY0=; 
 b=OjcHz0VcmZrCleBBd0HYPGpwIVt+u29t8XH0dZv7D0vxeng2sO1YuuDX
 N0bb7cKyUST91RaBJu8OTP/jhAS5Dw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; 
 [email protected]; q=dns/txt; s=201803r; t=1525652795; 
 h=date : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : 
 content-type : content-transfer-encoding : subject : to : 
 from : message-id : date : subject : from; 
 bh=y//EG8cuZXkAofOY+f4DpBOyUKgpWAB/YrKK2e9HtY0=; 
 b=RqQN7w6ozl4Hh66RJVnWWz9a8ZF0UKUMqOht95dGE/ZanHkH+nwj2Ttg
 A7YcV2TPZnvmZUrIVe/pvK6S1GlJKjm+mRPK4a2qfnqXdnlHDPrMwFc5hC
 OAHVIXUqw7/ybtagwS3iDcI81OSarTnkV9bE4zEVzRFIfuBp069zx1kWsn
 d1G2NACQb5zGW+FODW6ajmOE8isy59NWP/5+39zLirOBSONM/cs+kVKJ/N
 RNkN0H7yFA0i0OHKaDUZx9rRhIkhx5DNcfRhYoaSCHoyuuQUx+9Aali5Pg
 jbo+JbMtlWcU8hM3stOv0dDn/uwp+kEmQem8wH/S0v9hDXw3QCmAGw==
Received: from [192.168.1.147] (static-72-81-252-22.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.22])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95397C401DB;
	Sun,  6 May 2018 19:26:35 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 00:26:31 +0000
In-Reply-To: <1525652404.3835408.1362876960.64A81F13@webmail.messagingengine.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: [email protected]
From: Scott Kitterman <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

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

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <[email protected]>. Last modified: Tue May 13 11:50:59 2025; Machine Name: bembo

Debian Bug tracking system

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/.

Copyright © 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson, 2005-2017 Don Armstrong, and many other contributors.