Mattia Rizzolo: > On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:05:23PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: >> Somewhat related, but if we introduce this mooted "package-does-not- >> use- dh-sequencer" we need to work out what to do with: >> >> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/package-does-not-use-debhelper-or-cdbs.html >> >> One thing we can probably all agree with is that the severity of >> package-does-not-use-debhelper-or-cdbs should be equal to or exceed >> the severity of package-does-not-use-dh-sequencer as one is a logical >> subset of another. > > I just reported 3 bugs (#933901, #933902, #933903) with false positives > of that tag. I just looked a bunch of them and couldn't find a single > true positive, so I think that tag should be reviewed before bumping its > severity. > > I think those bugs should be squashed, reviewed, and then bumped to W. > Only once there are very few packages with that should > package-goes-not-use-dh-sequencer be bumped to W as well. > (note that package-does-not-)se-debhelper-or-cdbs does not emit for > classic-style debhelper rules files.) >
The tag package-does-not-use-debhelper-or-cdbs would probably benefit from using the same logic as debian-build-system, which tries to handle some of these cases. As I recall the %build_systems table holds exactly this kind of information already. Thanks, ~Niels
