On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > I already often open or reply to bugs in lintian (including when I think > severity is wrong). The main problem is not when lintian is wrong, the > main problem if when lintian is right but is nit-picking. While I > understand some of us would like to reach perfection, it is tiresome to > fix every small issue, notably when they don't have any other effect > than making a tool happy (and a few people) happy. And I never run > lintian at pedantic level.
If you aren't interested in package polishing, it sounds like it would be best for you to use the lintian profile that only reports reject-level or error-level complaints. Possibly run lintian in pedantic mode once per release cycle per package. > As an example, the spelling errors are useful for debian/ directory (as > informational), but totally useless for upstream stuff. For me, they are > not worth telling upstream, they are not worth adding to an override > (which could become outdated and give you another lintian warning). For me and others the right answer to spelling errors is to send a patch upstream, usually they are happy to apply it. > I have just updated a team-maintained package and I get: > > W: python-pyasn1: spelling-error-in-description-synopsis Python Python > (duplicate word) Python > W: python3-pyasn1: spelling-error-in-description-synopsis Python Python > (duplicate word) Python > > Description: ASN.1 library for Python (Python 2 module) > Description: ASN.1 library for Python (Python 3 module) As a human reading a description, I think I would prefer these: Description: ASN.1 library for Python 2 Description: ASN.1 library for Python 3 The number is the only part of the brackets that seems useful there. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
