Bug#887124: lintian: Do not use new-package-should-not-package-python2-module on lintian.d.o

[Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>]

On January 14, 2018 8:12:00 AM UTC, Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote:
>Scott Kitterman:
>> Package: lintian
>> Version: 2.5.68
>> Severity: normal
>> 
>> Dear Maintainer,
>> 
>> When new-package-should-not-package-python2-module appears on
>lintian.d.o, it
>> is an unneeded distraction.  At this point it's no longer a new
>package.  Any
>> future upload will 'fix' the issue since all this test does is check
>that
>> there is only a single debian/changelog entry.
>> 
>> I can, sort of, see the utility of this, for new packages, to get the
>> maintainer to consider if the new python2 package is really needed or
>not, but
>> by the time lintian.d.o sees the package, it's too late.
>> 
>> Please supress this tag from lintian.d.o
>> 
>> Scott K
>> 
>
>Hi,
>
>A different view: On occasion, we have pulled pre-releases on
>lintian.d.o and that triggered a bug from people, who did not like that
>fact that a local lintian and lintian.d.o disagreed on output.
>
>  * If we supress that tag, we should be prepared for a bug requesting
>    it to be undone for consistency with the locally installable
>    lintian.

That might be mitigated by adding an explanation for the tag about why it's not relevant to lintian.d.o.
>
>Secondly, lintian.d.o does not report what (tag visibility)
>configuration it uses.  So it would be totally hidden for anyone
>watching the website.  We start to do this for more than one tag, we
>should probably look into exposing the current profile (as it is
>defined) plus any relevant command-line options that affects the
>visibility of tags.  (Bonus if tag page will mention that the tag is
>suppressed/hidden).
>
>Thanks,
>~Niels

That sounds good.

Scott K