Hi Chris, On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 7:15 AM Chris Lamb <la...@debian.org> wrote: > > the > severity level is too high.
I agree. The severity was reduced to pedantic. As for the actual occurrence of the tag in Lintian, we have three options: 1. Install an override. This is my favorite. The tag was not triggered by the test suite in the source but is a genuine occurrence in our shipped product. The path segment repeats because our checks mirror Debian's ecosystem and infrastructure, including Lintian. In my mind, the is tag is real and should be overridden. 2. Alternatively, we could move the checks to d/lintian-overrides. The name is equally acceptable and would side-step the tag, but the path names become longer. That makes them less convenient. The change affects the tests, too. This is my second favorite option. 3. Programmatically exclude Lintian. Many of our self-exemptions will soon disappear. Lintian's test cases, which a are a major cause for the exemptions, will be excluded from source checks by a different mechanism. The tag at hand, however, is an installation matter and indicates a different kind of issue. Adding more exemptions for Lintian may also trigger image problems for us. I have been ridiculed for exempting Lintian from its own tags, which the correspondent perceived as equally overbearing on his own package. Kind regards, Felix Lechner