Bug#633507: lintian: duplicate missing-build-dependency{,-for-dh_-command} for dh_pysupport
On 2011-09-28 23:28, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> tags 633507 + patch
> thanks
>
> * Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>, 2011-07-11, 00:24:
>> My package was using dh_pysupport in debian/rules without
>> build-dependency on python-support. lintian yelled at me twice:
>>
>> E: libvigraimpex source: missing-build-dependency-for-dh_-command
>> dh_pysupport=python-support
>> E: libvigraimpex source: missing-build-dependency python-support
>
Hey,
As you have probably seen, I have applied the patch as is so the
particular issue is solved...
> The attached patch makes lintian stop emitting the latter tag for
> python-central and python-suppport. (Probably similar thing should be
> done for for dh-ocaml, but it's not _that_ easy.)
>
Possibly we could migrate some of the missing-build-dependency checks to
missing-build-dependency-for-dh_-command by using
data/debhelper/dh_commands-manual
> However, there are some gotchas:
> - missing-build-dependency has higher severity than ...-for-dh_-command.
> - missing-build-dependency is on ftp-masters' auto-reject list,
> automatically ...-for-dh_-command is not.
>
I suppose this could be fixed; bumping the severity of -for-dh_-command
should be trivial. I will send a request for an auto-reject on the
-for-dh_-command tag.
> Couldn't we merge these two tags into one? If there's a reason to keep
> them separate, at least severity should be unified and ftp-masters
> should be asked to add ...-for-dh_-command to their list.
>
They are separate because they are done in two different checks. The
-for-dh_-command is also limited to dh_-like tools, where the other does
not have this limitation.
Personally I am a bit conflicted. From the "outside" it would be nice
if this was just one tag, but looking at the code I cannot see a
"pretty" solution. Maybe I am a bit to picky; what do the rest of you
think? Should we merge the tags and if so, "which way" do we merge?
~Niels
Reply to: