Felix Lechner wrote:
> It would also give me more time to understand the possibly
> unreasonable burden on Lintian users across Debian and the derivative
> ecosystem. Simon may receive feedback from Ubuntu, a significant
> derivative. If there are real problems, I am happy to discuss a
> solution that reverts the default to Lintian's old setting.
Without rehashing the details here, if Ubuntu's CI would prefer a
different exit code, it would seem more sensible to keep the default
the same and ask Ubuntu to specify a different --fail-on=.
That would appear to limit require one change (and potential
"fallout") to one place, and indeed in a place that has the ability to
be changed.
> Now the best course of action, I think, is to downgrade the severity
> again to Guillem's original setting of 'important'. That will allow
> the change to remain in testing. It is, after all, what the testing
> distribution is for.
Ah, yeah, I had forgotten about autoremovals. Sigh.
> At the same time, the change was widely released two weeks ago. Simon
> Quigley from Ubuntu announced it on debian-devel on May 25 [1], while
> I advertised the change repeatedly on IRC and added a note to DevNews.
Just as an aside, it feels like a slight stretch to assume that every
Lintian user reads debian-devel, lurks on IRC or can be expected to
come across this in another way.
In the event that this default change stays, using the NEWS mechanism
might be appropriate to explain concisely and exactly what a user
may need to change (eg. "if you were relying on X, you should do Y".)
We should also consider bumping the major version number of Lintian
itself if we are strictly following the semver.org versioning scheme.
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
