Processed: reopening 884499

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > reopen 884499 Bug #884499 {Done: Chris Lamb } [lintian] lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS 'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version; all fixed versions will be

Processed: reopening 898091, closing 884499

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > # Reopen the correct bug > reopen 898091 Bug #898091 {Done: Chris Lamb } [lintian] lintian: Alter the semantics (etc.) of --pedantic? 'reopen' may be inappropriate when a bug has been closed with a version; all fixed versions

Bug#894870: lintian could ask maintainers to use dh_auto_*

Hi Helmut, > No. I was pondering it on irc and it didn't seem immediately actionable > to me. You wanted a bug report anyway and you got one. (Sure, and that was appreciated so we didn't lose the idea and context.) > Is there really much point in discussing whether tool diversity is good? >

Bug#894870: lintian could ask maintainers to use dh_auto_*

On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:54:46PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > How did you get on with this? :) No. I was pondering it on irc and it didn't seem immediately actionable to me. You wanted a bug report anyway and you got one. Is there really much point in discussing whether tool diversity is good?

Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS

clone 884499 -1 retitle -1 lintian: Alter the semantics (etc.) of --pedantic? severity -1 wishlist tags -1 + moreinfo thanks Hi Russ > […] At the very least lets not lose this conversation in a somewhat- unrelated bug, hence cloning etc. Tagging as "moreinfo" for now. > lintian --suggestions,

Processed: Re: Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > clone 884499 -1 Bug #884499 {Done: Chris Lamb } [lintian] lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS Bug 884499 cloned as bug 898091 > retitle -1 lintian: Alter the semantics (etc.) of --pedantic? Bug

Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS

Chris Lamb writes: > Y'know, I think we could make it even more effective if we renamed -- > pedantic at the same time. This would have the benefits of a) > highlighting the change of semantics and b) we could perhaps choose a > name that does not imply it is "just" another

Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS

Hi Russ, > My modest proposal, and this is going to sound nuts so bear with me for a > moment, would be to make it impossible to get pedantic tags and regular > tags at the same time. If you use --pedantic, suppress all other tags. Ooh, now that's an interesting concept. :) Let me run that over

Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS

On May 7, 2018 1:26:36 AM UTC, Russ Allbery wrote: >Chris Lamb writes: > >> However, my experience with being an author of a handful of static >> analysis tools is that people have a slight tendency to delegate >> thinking to the computer's output. The

Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS

Chris Lamb writes: > However, my experience with being an author of a handful of static > analysis tools is that people have a slight tendency to delegate > thinking to the computer's output. The addition of an objective target > (ie. zero output) only encourages our

Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS

Hi Russ & Scott, > I'm not sure how one could possibly be more clear. If one's definition of > lintian-clean includes --pedantic, one's definition of lintian-clean is, > well, wrong. There is no doubt that you are absolutely right in a technical sense and maintainers should not be using

Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS

Scott Kitterman writes: > Back in the debate about the python2 check (thanks for fixing), I made > the point that not all lintian checks are created equal. Some represent > serious package defects that needs to be addressed and some merely > reflect the lintian

Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS

On May 7, 2018 12:20:04 AM UTC, Chris Lamb wrote: >Hi Scott, > >> For what it's worth, this is an example of the kind of check that >isn't >> supported by policy. > >I'm not quite following your chain of logic wrt to Lintian and Debian >Policy. I mean, there are countless

Bug#884499: lintian: Pedantic check for packages not using debhelper or CDBS

Hi Scott, > For what it's worth, this is an example of the kind of check that isn't > supported by policy. I'm not quite following your chain of logic wrt to Lintian and Debian Policy. I mean, there are countless checks in Lintian that have no basis in Policy? :) (100% agree that there is no

Bug#898077: lintian: False positive in missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon, python package

Chris Lamb: > tags 898077 + pending > thanks > >> Lintian should perhaps check of there is a python package that meets the >> dependency requirement? Or allow e.g. "*scour"? > > We can't do a wildcard (!) but we can also check for > python-scour. I've done this in Git, pending upload: > > >

Bug#898077: lintian: False positive in missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon, python package

tags 898077 + pending thanks > Lintian should perhaps check of there is a python package that meets the > dependency requirement? Or allow e.g. "*scour"? We can't do a wildcard (!) but we can also check for python-scour. I've done this in Git, pending upload:

Processed: Re: lintian: False positive in missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon, python package

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 898077 + pending Bug #898077 [lintian] lintian: False positive in missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon, python package Added tag(s) pending. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 898077:

Bug#898077: lintian: False positive in missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon, python package

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.55 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, When building laditools, the missing-build-dependency-for-dh-addon lintian warning is received because scour is not a build dependency when the scour dh addon is used in debian/rules. However, python-scour is a build dependency