Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> writes: > TBH I think the distinction here is clear (at least to me), language- > specific sections should *only* contain things that are language specifc > modules that are automatically depended on, and language-specific > toolchains and similar. But nothing for which the language is just an > implementation detail. You classification seems plausible, and getting some ftp-master documentation that reflected that would be a good start. Unfortunately making distinction is not possible based on the package name for elpa- packages. Even making the distinction by hand is not so easy. Consider the example of 'magit', which is an editor plugin that probably belongs in either either "editors" or "version control" (or realistically, both). On the other hand, it is a dependency of magithub, and the elpa- naming is necessary for the dh_elpa tooling to work. I think similar confusion exists in many other places in the archive. `libapp-nopaste-perl` is in section perl, but its users don't care that it's written in perl. Unfortunately warnings with "certainty = possible" don't seem to be interpreted as the lintian maintainers probably intended, as suggestions requiring maintainer judgement. People just want to make their packages "lintian clean".
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature