Debian Bug report logs - #356051
lintian: Add a warning if the Initial Release of a package does not have an ITP.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Margarita Manterola <debian@marga.com.ar>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: lintian: Add a warning if the Initial Release of a package does not have an ITP.

Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:43:03 -0300

Package: lintian
Version: 1.23.15
Severity: wishlist

Hi!

I think it would be nice if Lintian warned when a package that has only one
changelog entry (thus --> Initial Release) does not include the closing of
a bug (ITP).

As per the Debian Developer's reference[1], "you must then submit a bug
report (...) against the pseudo-package wnpp describing your plan to create
a new package, including, but not limiting yourself to, a description of
the package, the license of the prospective package, and the current URL
where it can be downloaded from. "

[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html

The use of the word "must" indicates that it is somewhat compulsory to do
the ITP (even if many developers don't do it). So I think it's a good idea
to have a lintian check about this.

Love,
Marga.

Message #10 received at 356051@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: Margarita Manterola <debian@marga.com.ar>

Cc: 356051@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#356051: lintian: Add a warning if the Initial Release of a package does not have an ITP.

Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:41:06 -0800

Margarita Manterola <debian@marga.com.ar> writes:

> Package: lintian
> Version: 1.23.15
> Severity: wishlist

> Hi!

> I think it would be nice if Lintian warned when a package that has only
> one changelog entry (thus --> Initial Release) does not include the
> closing of a bug (ITP).

I understand the motivation, but I think there would be too many false
positives for this to be a worthwhile check in practice.  It's not unusual
for upstream sources to split apart or spawn new packages that need
separate source packages, and in that case there's not much reason for the
ITP.  Consider, for instance, the modular X migration currently underway;
all of the new modular packages would trigger this warning.

Also, while I realize that this isn't exactly lintian's intended mission,
a lot of people build packages for their own use or for use internal to an
organization, and still want to use lintian to check those packages.  For
example, at Stanford, we try to keep all of our internal packages
lintian-clean.  This warning would always trigger and would always have to
be overridden, which would be rather annoying.

> As per the Debian Developer's reference[1], "you must then submit a bug
> report (...) against the pseudo-package wnpp describing your plan to
> create a new package, including, but not limiting yourself to, a
> description of the package, the license of the prospective package, and
> the current URL where it can be downloaded from. "

> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-pkgs.en.html

> The use of the word "must" indicates that it is somewhat compulsory to
> do the ITP (even if many developers don't do it). So I think it's a good
> idea to have a lintian check about this.

Note that the Developer's Reference is not Policy, so "must" in there
doesn't have the same force of requirement.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Message #15 received at 356051-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Margarita Manterola <debian@marga.com.ar>

To: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

Cc: 356051-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#356051: lintian: Add a warning if the Initial Release of a package does not have an ITP.

Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 09:50:13 -0300

Hola Russ Allbery!

> Also, while I realize that this isn't exactly lintian's intended mission,
> a lot of people build packages for their own use or for use internal to an
> organization, and still want to use lintian to check those packages.  For
> example, at Stanford, we try to keep all of our internal packages
> lintian-clean.  This warning would always trigger and would always have to
> be overridden, which would be rather annoying.

Yes, I see... Is there anyway that one could add some special tests
designed onlyy for "newbies" ? Something like lintian --newbie-check :)

So that if you have a non-Debian package, or if you have a package being
split, this tests are not run.

This is obviously just a wishlist idea.  I have no idea how lintian is
implemented inside, no idea how easy or difficult it would be to do this.

> Note that the Developer's Reference is not Policy, so "must" in there
> doesn't have the same force of requirement.

Ok.  I thought that they were both considered the same, for lintian.

-- 
 Bessos,    (o_
    Marga.  (\)_

Message #20 received at 356051-submitter@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: www-data <www-data@wolffelaar.nl>

To: control@bugs.debian.org, 356051-submitter@bugs.debian.org, 435963-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Lintian bugs fixed in revision r1067

Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 07:10:54 +0100

package lintian
# Fixed in r1067 by rra
tag 356051 + pending
tag 435963 + pending
thanks

These bugs are fixed in revision 1067 by rra
Log message:
  + [RA] If this looks like a new package (Debian revision of -1 and
    only one changelog entry), warn if it doesn't close a bug.  Thanks,
    Margarita Manterola.  (Closes: #356051)
  + [RA] Check for lines over 80 columns in the most recent entry.
    Thanks, Guillem Jover.  (Closes: #435963)

Message #25 received at 356051-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

To: 356051-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#356051: fixed in lintian 1.23.39

Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 06:32:03 +0000

Source: lintian
Source-Version: 1.23.39

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
lintian, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

lintian_1.23.39.dsc
  to pool/main/l/lintian/lintian_1.23.39.dsc
lintian_1.23.39.tar.gz
  to pool/main/l/lintian/lintian_1.23.39.tar.gz
lintian_1.23.39_all.deb
  to pool/main/l/lintian/lintian_1.23.39_all.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 356051@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> (supplier of updated lintian package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:12:56 -0800
Source: lintian
Binary: lintian
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.23.39
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Lintian Maintainers <lintian-maint@debian.org>
Changed-By: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
Description: 
 lintian    - Debian package checker
Closes: 36017 356051 435963 448783 453177 454358 454688 454723 454730 454790
Changes: 
 lintian (1.23.39) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   The "Ubuntu and doc-base patch merge, with extra fixes" release.
 .
   * checks/*.desc:
     + [RA] Remove the unused Standards-Version header.
   * checks/changelog-file{.desc,}:
     + [RA] Check the latest entry of the Debian changelog and any
       NEWS.Debian file for common spelling errors.  (Closes: #36017)
     + [RA] If this looks like a new package (Debian revision of -1 and
       only one changelog entry), warn if it doesn't close a bug.  Thanks,
       Margarita Manterola.  (Closes: #356051)
     + [RA] Check for lines over 80 columns in the most recent entry.
       Thanks, Guillem Jover.  (Closes: #435963)
   * checks/copyright-file{.desc,}:
     + [RA] Moved spelling-error-in-copyright check to here.
   * checks/debconf:
     + [RA] Go back to not warning about "no" in boolean debconf
       questions.  The word is too common in normal English prose for
       reasons other than assuming a particular debconf interface.  Thanks,
       Rafael Laboissiere.  (Closes: #453177)
   * checks/debian-readme{.desc,}:
     + [RA] Moved spelling-error-in-readme-debian check to here.
   * checks/description{.desc,}:
     + [RA] Moved spelling-error-in-description check to here.
   * checks/fields:
     + [RA] Python documentation packages should still be in section doc.
       Thanks, Michal Čihař.  (Closes: #454688)
     + [RA] Warn about lib.*-dev packages not in section libdevel.
     + [RA] Warn about debug packages that aren't priority: extra.  Thanks,
       Joerg Jaspert.  (Closes: #454358)
     + [RA] Ignore Original-Maintainer if the version contains ubuntu.
     + [RA] Only warn about Section for Python packages starting with
       python-, not py, since py picks up too many things that aren't
       Python modules.
     + [RA] Only warn about Section for Perl packages matching lib.*-perl
       to avoid false positives for things like dh-make-perl.  Thanks,
       Damyan Ivanov.  (Closes: #454723)
   * checks/files:
     + [RA] Warn about packages providing files in /usr/lib/debug that
       aren't named -dbg.  Thanks, Joerg Jaspert.
   * checks/lintian.desc:
     + [RA] Add bad-ubuntu-distribution-in-changes-file, merged from the
       Ubuntu patch.
     + [RA] Fix the malformed-override long description.  Thanks, Stefan
       Fritsch.
   * checks/menus{.desc,}:
     + [RA] Substantial overhaul and expansion of the doc-base control file
       checks.  Patch from Robert Luberda.  (Closes: #448783)
   * checks/nmu:
     + [RA] No packages with ubuntu in the version number are NMUs.  Merged
       from the Ubuntu patch.
   * checks/patch-systems:
     + [RA] Ignore blank lines in 00list and don't report them as patches
       without descriptions.  Thanks, Julien BLACHE.  (Closes: #454730)
   * checks/spelling{.desc,}:
     + [RA] Subsumed into other check scripts and lib/Spelling.pm.
 .
   * frontend/lintian:
     + [RA] If the version number indicates an Ubuntu package, check
       against a different list of allowable distributions.  Merged from
       the Ubuntu patch.
     + [RA] Skip check and collection *.desc files whose names start with a
       period (mostly to avoid testing artifacts from editor lock files).
     + [RA] Restore previous override parsing and make the package name
       optional again.  Thanks, Stefan Fritsch.  (Closes: #454790)
     + [RA] Check overrides for implausible tags.
 .
   * lib/Spelling.pm:
     + [RA] New module to do general spelling checks for specific
       misspellings.  Based on the previous checks/spelling and a patch by
       Robert Luberda.
Files: 
 721e5584c1bbb5fe0115d8f14b2e6d6d 904 devel optional lintian_1.23.39.dsc
 60c7fafc093656f1da0b2533896e82a2 362802 devel optional lintian_1.23.39.tar.gz
 07ca14cf6ddc073163bf7eb74df4cb4b 306822 devel optional lintian_1.23.39_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHWjip+YXjQAr8dHYRAjVtAJ9Nkax/MkPdLDaPTuEzztjNESLZEQCfasIK
+zPl8GEi7OWape5uGN+U9xo=
=ENZp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.