Ahmad Khalifa <ah...@khalifa.ws> writes: > On 27/01/2025 18:24, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Annoying to implement because I think the implementation would have to >> know what symbols are provided by libc. > To my knowledge objdump will spit out the symbols with (GLIBC_v*) Oh, if one can reliably detect libc symbols by looking at the symbol version, that would indeed make it a lot easier. I was assuming that wasn't necessarily the case, but now I'm not sure why I thought that. > Having said that, lintian is slow enough as a single thread, I'd vote for > downgrading the tag to Pedantic, but not deleting it. So, I guess I'll say this more explicitly: I am opposed to downgrading the tag to pedantic. If the tag is useful, we should fix it; if it's not useful, we should delete it. It's not a pedantic issue with the package. If the error is real, it's serious, but Lintian's check for the error has a high false positive rate. That's not what pedantic is for. Pedantic is intended for tags where Lintian has correctly understood the thing that it is complaining about, but people do not always agree that thing is worth fixing. If you really want to keep the tag despite a lot of false positives, the way to do that would be to make it experimental, but I think experimental tags are often a dumping ground for things that will never be fixed and it might be better to just delete it. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
