On May 7, 2018 12:20:04 AM UTC, Chris Lamb <la...@debian.org> 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 checks in Lintian that have no >basis in Policy? :) > >(100% agree that there is no requirement whatsoever to use debhelper >or CDBS and I have a great deal of sympatahy with you position on >this tag. Indeed, I can quite possibly see myself removing this tag >at a later date.)
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 maintainer's opinion on what should be tracked and it's entirely up to the maintainer to decide if any action is needed. This is one of the latter. I worry about this class of tag because some people view a lintian 'clean' package as an important goal when it's not universally. One needs to look at what lintian is reporting and evaluate it. Not everyone does a great job of that and so unintended consequences arise. Scott K
