Hi Felix
On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 18:16:22 -0700 Felix Lechner <felix.lech...@lease-up.com> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 3:42 AM Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > Afaics, libmtp-common is affected by this as well. [That] maintainer decided > > to override lintian. > > I noticed you eventually decided to override Lintian, as well. > > > Tbh, I'm not sure how to fix this without lintian becoming a udev rules > > parsers which understands how those labels are resolved. > > Like you, I am not sure how to address that. Does systemd offer any > validation capabilities? > > Alternatively, would it be okay to close this bug? > > We will soon have ways to monitor overrides in the archive (and yours > are annotated with this bug number). > > N: False positive: SUBSYSTEM is tested at the beginning of the rules file. > N: See https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=945934 > O: udev: udev-rule-missing-subsystem > lib/udev/rules.d/60-autosuspend-chromiumos.rules:100 vendor/product > matching missing SUBSYSTEM specifier Looks like in systemd v246, the .rules file was turned into a .hwdb file: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/aa549ff3972b067c4225db0a845f5c638842fba3 So, systemd no longer triggers this lintian error and as far as I'm concerned, this issue can be closed. Parsing udev rules files is tricky and I don't think lintian should start doing that. If such false positives are rare enough I guess it's ok to add package specific overrides. Regards, Michael
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
