Guillem Jover: > On Sun, 2017-06-25 at 22:08:36 +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: >> Guillem Jover wrote: >>>>> Why is debian-rules-parses-dpkg-parsechangelog a wishlist? >>>> >>>> I'm a little confused by your question; are you asking why Lintian is >>>> mentioning this in the first place? Or why it reports at with "wishlist" >>>> severity? :) >>> >>> Yeah, I guess both. :) >> >> So, I suggested it because of the myriad ways people were parsing the >> metadata from the debian/changelog, some of them buggy. Eg. they would >> break on an epoch or a binNMU, etc. etc. Besides, if there is a nice >> library, we might as well all standardise on using it? > > Ah, I think it would be nice to explain something along these lines > in the tag. I was rather confused by why the Makefile fragment was > recommended over a simple already correct call. > > I'm also aware of few people who have a problem with the fragment as > an interface. So having lintian emit tags over those and stating that > they should be switched to the fragment might annoy people. > > [...]
Even with all the optimizations we have made in Debian (well, mostly you), the "simple correct call" would still cause #793404 to a much higher degree than the Makefile fragment that uses careful lazy evaluation, wouldn't it? Thanks, ~Niels
