Your message dated Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:12:40 +0000 with message-id <20180423181239.y3zum2kp6bj42...@layer-acht.org> and subject line Re: Bug#896696: lintian: please improve tag description to explain that python 2 modules are only questioned on 1st upload has caused the Debian Bug report #896696, regarding lintian: please improve tag description to explain that python 2 modules are only questioned on 1st upload to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 896696: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=896696 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---package: lintian severity: wishlist x-debbugs-cc: debian-de...@lists.debian.org On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 06:33:20PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > For example, I think Holger is interpreting this particular tag as > "this source package is shipping a Python 2.x" module. This is not > the case. > > Rather, Lintian detects that this is the *initial* upload of the > source package and, if so, asks the maintainer just to double-check > that there is any requirement for it. > > If there is such a need, the maintainer just needs to add a short, > quick justification in the initial changelog entry and Lintian will > then be silent on the matter. > > It is thus not asking maintainers to drop Python 2 support… Then the lintian message should be appended to say this only happens on the first upload. Thanks. > As there can only be one initial upload by definition, adding an > override here is not only a little silly given that it will trigger > an "unused override" warning on the next upload, it can simply be > avoided in the changelog entry as previously discussed, which > implicitly serves as some documentation too. Maybe it's also worth pointing this out. > (This talk of overrides was why I believe Holger is accidentally > confusing the tag.) Yes. And because the tag description needs improving. ;) -- cheers, Holgersignature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 07:05:41PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > It does, no? The current text is: ah, thanks for clarifying. I indeed filed the bug only by judging what was said and quoted on -devel@. Sorry for the noise! -- cheers, Holgersignature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---