FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-03-2008, 07:08 AM
Steve Langasek
 
Default Opinions needed: reporting lintian overrides

On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:30:09PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> After a recent problem with a package with a fairly egregious error that
> was overridden, hurting the ability of the sponsor to notice it, I added a
> line of output to the default lintian output saying if any package
> overrides error or warning tags.

> As I sort of suspected at the time, someone else has now objected to
> having this output by default on the grounds that the point of the
> override was to shut lintian up and it's easier to verify that lintian
> produces no output.

> I'd really like to not have to make this decision myself. I'd like to get
> opinions and see if a consensus emerges. I personally always run lintian
> with -iI --show-overrides, so I'm clearly not the target audience for this
> feature one way or the other. Here are the options:


> * Show the N: line with a count of overrides per package by default and
> provide an option to suppress this output if someone wants.

> * Don't show the N: line by default and provide an option to turn it on.

> Which should we do?

I have to agree that lintian shouldn't output any noise about overrides by
default. To my mind this partly defeats the purpose of having an override
facility, and I don't think one instance of poor judgement should outweigh
the benefit of being able to spare developers from worrying about lintian
warnings that we know for certain are false-positives.

E.g., this:

N: samba_3.0.28-2.dsc overrode 4 warnings
N: winbind_3.0.28-2_amd64.deb overrode 3 errors, 2 warnings
N: smbfs_3.0.28-2_amd64.deb overrode 2 warnings
N: samba-common_3.0.28-2_amd64.deb overrode 1 warning
N: samba_3.0.28-2_amd64.deb overrode 1 warning

is now half the lintian output for samba, and it's the half that was
deliberately overridden before /so that/ the remaining problems would be
more visible

And yes, none of these are overrides to paper over lintian bugs...

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-03-2008, 07:21 AM
Russ Allbery
 
Default Opinions needed: reporting lintian overrides

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> E.g., this:
>
> N: samba_3.0.28-2.dsc overrode 4 warnings
> N: winbind_3.0.28-2_amd64.deb overrode 3 errors, 2 warnings
> N: smbfs_3.0.28-2_amd64.deb overrode 2 warnings
> N: samba-common_3.0.28-2_amd64.deb overrode 1 warning
> N: samba_3.0.28-2_amd64.deb overrode 1 warning
>
> is now half the lintian output for samba, and it's the half that was
> deliberately overridden before /so that/ the remaining problems would be
> more visible

Yeah, that's annoying.

> And yes, none of these are overrides to paper over lintian bugs...

I dunno, I could make the argument that several of those are lintian bugs.
*grin*

O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source debian/config.cache

If you put a config.cache file directly in the debian directory, you
probably know what you're doing and lintian shouldn't be warning about
it. That tag is designed to catch garbage mistakenly left around by
upstream. These:

O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source packaging/Debian/debian-sarge/config.cache
O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source packaging/Debian/debian-unstable/config.cache
O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source packaging/Debian/debian-woody/config.cache

are harder, though, and probably are stuck with being overrides at least
for now.

O: winbind binary: no-shlibs-control-file lib/libnss_winbind.so.2
O: winbind binary: no-shlibs-control-file lib/libnss_wins.so.2
O: winbind binary: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libnss-winbind2 libnss-wins2

The last one is, to my mind, a clear bug in lintian. nsswitch modules
shouldn't count as shared libraries for that tag; their SONAME is not
something you need to embed in the package name to ease transitions.

I thought we previously talked about shlibs for nsswitch modules in
debian-devel and decided it was a good idea or at least wouldn't hurt, and
libc6's *.shlibs file seems to back me up. So the first two might be
minor bugs in the package. Although I have no idea why anyone would ever
link directly against an nsswitch module and doing so is probably a bad
idea, so maybe not having a shlibs file for one is something lintian
should just swallow.

Either way, I don't think the first two should stay as lintian overrides.
Either nsswitch modules should have shlibs entries, in which case samba
should be modified (at a low priority, of course), or they shouldn't, in
which case lintian should shut up about it.

These, of course:

O: smbfs binary: setuid-binary sbin/mount.cifs 4755 root/root
O: smbfs binary: setuid-binary sbin/umount.cifs 4755 root/root
O: samba binary: non-standard-dir-perm var/spool/samba/ 1777 != 0755

are the classic override use case and are just fine as overrides.

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-03-2008, 07:48 AM
Steve Langasek
 
Default Opinions needed: reporting lintian overrides

On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:21:54AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > And yes, none of these are overrides to paper over lintian bugs...

> I dunno, I could make the argument that several of those are lintian bugs.
> *grin*

> O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source debian/config.cache

> If you put a config.cache file directly in the debian directory, you
> probably know what you're doing and lintian shouldn't be warning about
> it. That tag is designed to catch garbage mistakenly left around by
> upstream.

Exclusively for garbage left around by upstream? Surely if an autogenerated
config.cache manages to get into the .diff.gz, that's also a bug (in the
clean target) that should be fixed?

Though yes, debian/config.cache doesn't fit this use case anyway so lintian
could mechanically distinguish it, it just didn't seem worthwhile to me to
suggest hard-coding of such a rare exception.

> These:

> O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source packaging/Debian/debian-sarge/config.cache
> O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source packaging/Debian/debian-unstable/config.cache
> O: samba source: configure-generated-file-in-source packaging/Debian/debian-woody/config.cache

> are harder, though, and probably are stuck with being overrides at least
> for now.

<nod>

> O: winbind binary: no-shlibs-control-file lib/libnss_winbind.so.2
> O: winbind binary: no-shlibs-control-file lib/libnss_wins.so.2
> O: winbind binary: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libnss-winbind2 libnss-wins2

> The last one is, to my mind, a clear bug in lintian. nsswitch modules
> shouldn't count as shared libraries for that tag; their SONAME is not
> something you need to embed in the package name to ease transitions.

> I thought we previously talked about shlibs for nsswitch modules in
> debian-devel and decided it was a good idea or at least wouldn't hurt, and
> libc6's *.shlibs file seems to back me up. So the first two might be
> minor bugs in the package. Although I have no idea why anyone would ever
> link directly against an nsswitch module and doing so is probably a bad
> idea, so maybe not having a shlibs file for one is something lintian
> should just swallow.

I don't agree that nss_winbind and nss_wins should have shlibs; I for one
don't intend to support anyone who's linking directly against the package,
which clearly lacks any sort of soname support in the package name.

> Either way, I don't think the first two should stay as lintian overrides.
> Either nsswitch modules should have shlibs entries, in which case samba
> should be modified (at a low priority, of course), or they shouldn't, in
> which case lintian should shut up about it.

But the only way to have lintian shut up about these would be by using some
heuristic to identify NSS modules. Well, I suppose /lib/libnss_*.so*
doesn't leave too much room for false negatives, after all...


--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-03-2008, 08:01 AM
Loc Minier
 
Default Opinions needed: reporting lintian overrides

On Wed, Jan 02, 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> * Don't show the N: line by default and provide an option to turn it on.

I read a lot of people complain that the N: lines clutter the output:
lintian's colored output helps distinguishing clutter or the more
important errors from the harmless ones. I think it's fine to output
N: lines in a different or default color color around the not-overriden
warnings and errors which stand out in yellow and red.

--
Loc Minier


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-03-2008, 03:08 PM
Thomas Viehmann
 
Default Opinions needed: reporting lintian overrides

Russ Allbery wrote:
> * Show the N: line with a count of overrides per package by default and
> provide an option to suppress this output if someone wants.

> * Don't show the N: line by default and provide an option to turn it on.

How about counting them and output one N: line per invocation / argument?

Kind regards

T.


--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-03-2008, 04:28 PM
Christian Perrier
 
Default Opinions needed: reporting lintian overrides

Quoting Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org):

> * Show the N: line with a count of overrides per package by default and
> provide an option to suppress this output if someone wants.
>
> * Don't show the N: line by default and provide an option to turn it on.


My first reaction would have been supporting the first option. I think
I have seen too many useless overrides that were soundling like hiding
the dust under the rug.

Others contributors in this thread seem to think differently and I
have to admit that their arguments sound fair also. Most seem to be
easily summarized as "do we trust our fellow DD to do The Right Thing"
and not abuse overrides......

So, well, I wouldn't cry too hard if the second option is finally
used..
 
Old 01-03-2008, 06:28 PM
Russ Allbery
 
Default Opinions needed: reporting lintian overrides

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 12:21:54AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> If you put a config.cache file directly in the debian directory, you
>> probably know what you're doing and lintian shouldn't be warning about
>> it. That tag is designed to catch garbage mistakenly left around by
>> upstream.

> Exclusively for garbage left around by upstream? Surely if an
> autogenerated config.cache manages to get into the .diff.gz, that's also
> a bug (in the clean target) that should be fixed?

Well, yeah, that too. It catches both.

> Though yes, debian/config.cache doesn't fit this use case anyway so
> lintian could mechanically distinguish it, it just didn't seem
> worthwhile to me to suggest hard-coding of such a rare exception.

Eh. There are a lot of picky little exceptions like that in lintian and
they don't seem to be much of a maintenance burden. Maybe I'm too used to
them. I'd generally rather add an exception if it's even vaguely general
than have more people add overrides, but I'm possibly too willing to do
that.

> But the only way to have lintian shut up about these would be by using
> some heuristic to identify NSS modules. Well, I suppose
> /lib/libnss_*.so* doesn't leave too much room for false negatives, after
> all...

Exactly. Seems like a worthwhile change to me, particularly since the
various tags around shared library naming, SONAMEs, and so forth are one
of our larger groups of false positives and overrides.

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-04-2008, 04:37 AM
Guillem Jover
 
Default Opinions needed: reporting lintian overrides

Hi,

On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 08:55:06 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > Currently on dpkg I have 4 N: lines: one per deb + one for the
> > > .dsc. That clutters the output a bit too much to my taste. And ideally
> > > it should be at the end of the output (or at the beginning) but not
> > > spread in the output.
> >
> > I was going to ask: why does dpkg have (and override lintian warnings for)
> > Bugs and Origin fields? It's the only package in the archive with those
> > fields set to their default values.
> >
> > redundant-bugs-field (0 packages, 0 tags, plus 3 overrides)
> > redundant-origin-field (0 packages, 0 tags, plus 4 overrides)
>
> Hum... I don't know. It looks like it got added by Wichert Akkerman in
> 2000:
> * Add Origin and Bugs fields to the control file

I guess he did that as a proof of concept, and as a way to document
them through practice.

> And the lintian overrides got added by Guillem last year.

Until recently there was not much documentation about those fields
(there's now few lines in deb-control(5), but still) and not much
usage, I also wanted to keep them for now until knowing what to do
with them. And lintian was being annoying.

I've been preparing a proposal to try to make the Origin and Bugs
fields more useful (I think currently they are only used by reportbug)
which could imply including such fields in binary packages for example.
I'll try to send some draft soonish.

regards,
guillem


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-04-2008, 06:24 AM
Neil Williams
 
Default Opinions needed: reporting lintian overrides

On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 18:28 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org):
>
> > * Show the N: line with a count of overrides per package by default and
> > provide an option to suppress this output if someone wants.
> >
> > * Don't show the N: line by default and provide an option to turn it on.
>
>
> My first reaction would have been supporting the first option. I think
> I have seen too many useless overrides that were soundling like hiding
> the dust under the rug.
>
> Others contributors in this thread seem to think differently and I
> have to admit that their arguments sound fair also. Most seem to be
> easily summarized as "do we trust our fellow DD to do The Right Thing"
> and not abuse overrides......

With the safeguard that the improved lintian website output will include
details of the overrides in use, it should be relatively easy to spot
those occasions when a stale override has been left around and when an
override has been used carelessly. (Hint: stick the lintian bug number
in the override file.) It's probably excessive to *require* bug numbers
in override files. ;-)

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
 
Old 01-04-2008, 10:20 AM
Joerg Jaspert
 
Default Opinions needed: reporting lintian overrides

On 11253 March 1977, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I'd really like to not have to make this decision myself. I'd like to get
> opinions and see if a consensus emerges. I personally always run lintian
> with -iI --show-overrides, so I'm clearly not the target audience for this
> feature one way or the other. Here are the options:

In the NEW queue lintian gets called as "lintian --show-overrides" on
.deb and .dsc files, and depending on what is overwritten the package
might get rejected.

> * Show the N: line with a count of overrides per package by default and
> provide an option to suppress this output if someone wants.
> * Don't show the N: line by default and provide an option to turn it on.

> Which should we do?

Show overrides by default. At least one line with "XX overrides active,
YY unused overrides".

--
bye Joerg
Endianess is the dispute on which end to open an egg at.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:43 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org