On 2012-08-02 10:13, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Package: lintian > Version: 2.5.10 > Severity: normal > > Hi folks, >
Hi, > I just stumbled upon lintian giving me a false "unused-override" > tag. This happens when you override some tag because the file > needed for it is in another package, but then run lintian on both > packages involved: Lintian now finds the file in the other package, > doesn't trigger the warning and thinks the override is unused. > I have to admit I have been a bit conflicted in case. On one hand, I would like to promote the use of group processing precisely because it can give more accurate results. On the other hand, Lintian is now being used in "pre-install" checks (e.g. apt-daemon) where I am almost the checker will not fetch the related packages. Obviously these pre-install checkers will (depending on the tags emitted) refuse the install the package. > In this particular case, I was overriding the menu-icon-missing tag > in the openttd package, since the menu icon is in the openttd-data > package (which openttd depens on). > > To reproduce (I removed an unrelated binary-without-manpage tag from > below output for clarity): > > [...] (JFTR, you can use "--tags <the-only-tag-you-want-to-see>", so you don't have to fix the output manually. In theory it is also faster as Lintian is lazy) > > I don't think there's any way right now I can build my package such that > it is lintian clean both when checking with just openttd and when > checking openttd and openttd-data in the same lintian run (e.g., when > running lintian on the .changes file). > Technically I believe you can override "unused-override", but lets not go there. > I'm not sure what the proper fix for this is. Perhaps each check should > detect that it's _not_ firing because there are multiple packages (and > it would have fired if the packages were processed separately), or > perhaps for each apparently unused override, the given check should be run > on each package separately to see if it's really unused? > If it is to be any of those two, I'd go for the former. Probably, the former is the only solution to this problem if we want to make packages Lintian clean in both use-cases. > Gr. > > Matthijs > > [...] ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
