Bug#883772: lintian: please don't map implementation language to sections
[Altering Subject to match updated bug title] Hi Guillem & David, > I'd rather we fixed the actual problem here with elpa, instead of > lowering it from W to I. In addition to my mass overrides, I was happy > to see that we could slowly course-correct the Section degradation via > lintian, but lowering this, makes it more difficult. :( With my Lintian hat on here, what I am 100% trying to avoid here is either encouraging folks to blindly following it in error (and possibly tediously asking them to change later) as well as being overly nagging in general. Once we have nailed the section mapping "upstream", let's 100%, definitely bump this back up. Perhaps even higher. In the meantime, I really want to avoid harmful false positives (of sorts) as maintainers ignoring Lintian undermines the quality of the entire Debian archive in areas outside of sections. > that's what I've been following when filing my mass override > fixes to ftp-masters. Thanks for sending these! Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#883772: lintian: please don't map implementation language to sections
tags 883772 + pending thanks Hi David, > In case you consider the previous not constructive ;), what about > lowering the severity to "pedantic"? Again, I share your opinion about the entire section thing, just that a bug against Lintian is the best forum for such a discussion :) Lets downgrade it from "W" to "I" at the very least: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=07bc5dff9aa74e738a24b50b30a2dd8ea103ac27 Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#883772: lintian: please don't map implementation language to sections
Chris Lamb writes: > Hey David! > >> the programming-language sections are a mess > > Whilst I don't necessarily disagree, I'm not sure what the next steps > for Lintian are here. > > Putting it another way, I see you linked #802488 but until that gets > some kind of resolution (or some change to Policy), what is there for > us to do..? Let me turn that question around. In the absence of clear policy [1] of what belongs in the programming language sections, why should lintian recommend adding things to them? At best it's busywork for maintainers and ftp-masters, and at worst it's making things worse for our users [2]. In case you consider the previous not constructive ;), what about lowering the severity to "pedantic"? [1]: In either the ftp-master reject-faq sense, or the debian policy sense [2]: Assuming some users care about sections as a way to find packages.
Bug#883772: lintian: please don't map implementation language to sections
tags 883772 + moreinfo thanks Hey David! > the programming-language sections are a mess Whilst I don't necessarily disagree, I'm not sure what the next steps for Lintian are here. Putting it another way, I see you linked #802488 but until that gets some kind of resolution (or some change to Policy), what is there for us to do..? Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
