Re: Replaces without Breaks or Conflicts harmful? [was: Re: Policy consensus on transition when removing initscripts.]
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 13:34, Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Bas,
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 08:19:51AM +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
> > On 6/28/23 21:49, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> > > Debian GIS Project <pkg-grass-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
> > > postgis
> > > qgis
> >
> > Why is postgis on this list?
> >
> > $ grep -c Replaces debian/control*
> > debian/control:0
> > debian/control.in:0
>
> Thanks for asking. You identified another source of false positives that
> slipped my mind when doing the analysis. The underlying data source did
> not use unstable, but every suite from bullseye to experimental
> including -security and -backports. As it happens, bookworm's
> postgresql-15-postgis-3-scripts has versioned Replaces that are not
> matched with Breaks or Conflicts. I don't think we are going to fix that
> in bookworm and you've fixed it in unstable. So yeah, this list has more
> false positives than originally assumed.
In case it's useful, src:dpdk is also a false positive, I suspect
because the versions in the breaks vs replaces are slightly different
- probably clerical mistakes, like a missing '~'.
> I could improve the numbers, but to me the numbers I've given being a
> tight upper bound seems good enough and lintian.debian.org will give us
> precise and current numbers once my patch is merged. Does that seem
> sensible to you as well?
Sadly, as I found out recently for the scripts mbf, lintian.d.o is
borken and has ~2 years old stale data. We should probably consider
taking it down, given it appears fully working and can be queried, but
just returns stale data with no indication that it is stale on the
face of it, without manual checks.
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
Reply to: