On 29/03/13 at 01:28 +0100, Niels Thykier wrote: > Hi, > > I am not sure we can in general promote the use of 3.0 (quilt) over 1.0 > via Lintian at the moment[1]. > > Though I noticed that people are writing their own tools to extract > things like "what source format is used" or "what build systems are > used". With #359059 being fixed in 2.5.12, perhaps it is worth for us > to consider if Lintian could be used for more than "mere" flaw > reporting. Like adding a new "kind" of tag that is not a "flaw" but > simply a "property" of the package[2]. > > While it would not directly solve your/Luacs's request for promoting a > switch to 3.0 (quilt), it would still report which source formats are > used (and would be importable into UDD). It is also quite possible that > some of the metrics on mentors.d.n could be replaced by this new > "property" tag[3]. > > ~Niels > > [1] Basically it is the same reasons as mentioned in #702671. > > [2] Originally I considered using "informational tag" here, but I > figured it would be confused with "I" tags. > > [3] I doubt the current ones will be replaced, but one can hope that > future metrics would be written as such a tag.
Hi, Actually, I have two motivations for that: 1) be able to easily track the number of "affected" packages. But actually, I solve that using another solution (custom script + snapshot.d.o, see http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=751). [ it just occurred to me that using lintian to do that analysis would have been possible (esp. with Property tags) and quite nice. ] 2) push for "archive renovation/standardisation" on good practices. As I wrote in https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2013/03/msg00193.html: > Discouraging the use of some development practices is part of that. > There are good reasons for not using any of dh or cdbs, not using 3.0 > (quilt), so I don't think that we should force that in policy, and make > that RC bugs. > But I think that we should discuss adding lintian warning or errors for: > - packages using 1.0 format and having files modified directly > => should move to 3.0 (quilt) > - packages using 1.0 format and simple-patchsys, quilt, or dpatch > => should move to 3.0 (quilt) > - packages using debhelper directly (not dh or cdbs) > => should move to dh > [ there are good reasons in some cases for doing some of the above. > Adding lintian override in those cases would be totally OK, and also > a good way to identify current limitations in 3.0 (quilt) or dh. ] > > I would hope that the increasing visibility brought by lintian > warnings/errors, and as well as the advertised project consensus that > such practices are discouraged, would help us get rid of such practices. Now, as was suggested in #702671, there should be prior discussion on -devel@ about that. I'll raise the topic after the DPL election (it might sound like a political move if I did it now) -- unless someone beats me with it. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org