[Aptitude-devel] My first commits to the repository and question about future releases

[Daniel Hartwig]

On 16 January 2012 15:55, Axel Beckert <abe at debian.org> wrote:
>
> Apropos Lintian. There are a few Lintian warnings, which should be fixed
> (if not already fixed in the git repo):
>
>  http://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/dburrows@debian.org.html#aptitude
>
> But most of them are easy to fix:

Indeed.  Some have been fixed earlier today.

Some comments:

>
> Source package:
>
>    W ancient-standards-version
>        3.8.3 (current is 3.9.2)
>
> -> Should be updated. Check one of
>   /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/upgrading-checklist.*
>

Bump to 3.9.1 is ok IMO.  With 3.9.2 there is:

> 3.3
>
> The maintainer address must accept mail from Debian role accounts
> and the BTS. At least one human must be listed with their
> personal email address in Uploaders if the maintainer is a shared
> email address. The duties of a maintainer are also clearer.

Is this an issue given that the current maintainer address is not
responsive for some time?


>    E python-script-but-no-python-dep
>        usr/share/bug/aptitude
>
> -> If reportbug (which makes use of that script) is installed, python
>   will be installed anyway, so I'd override this lintian warning and maybe
>   even file a bug against lintian.
>

Converted this to sh as the interface is well-defined and it is
conceivable that some package other than reportbug may make use
of the script.  The original was trivial enough to not justify
use of python anyway.


>    W binary-without-manpage
>        usr/bin/aptitude-curses
>
> -> No problem, but I think either a slave alternative to aptitude or a
>   lintian override should be added. I'd prefer the slave alternative.
>

> aptitude-gtk
>
>    W binary-without-manpage
>        usr/bin/aptitude-gtk
>
> -> See above.

I did consider a slave alternative though don't think it is
suitable at the moment since there is no dedicated man page
describing the GTK-standard options.

I think best bet is an override and moving the man page to
hypothetical aptitude-common (along with other arch-indep
files).

>
>    W debian-rules-missing-recommended-target
>        build-arch
>        build-indep
>    W package-would-benefit-from-build-arch-targets
>
> -> Hopefully not too complex to add.

There is a patch with empty targets but I didn't think
that would be very useful.  With a little more effort
we can at least move the docs to build-indep and get
some actual benefits.

> I arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share
>
>    7336kB 66%
>
> -> Maybe not easy. I'd say not top priority, but worth to look at.
>

Yes -- certainly enough there to justify "aptitude-common".


Thanks for the pointers.