On 18 April 2018 at 08:18, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <po...@debian.org> wrote: > On 18/04/18 01:30, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >> That's another perfect example why udeb additions should get reviewed: >> we would have noticed another buggy package, and its bugginess might not >> have been copied over to another package. > > I'm sure people don't request those reviews because they don't know or because > they forget. A lintian warning could help, or ftp-masters enforcing an ack. > Though I'd prefer the former as I wouldn't like NEW to have another > bottleneck. > >> If someone wants to drive an effort to make -V a must for udebs in >> policy, that's probably fine. It doesn't strike me as ultimately needed >> (we've lived without it for quite some time because maintainers tend to >> just do the right thing), but if people have spare time, go for it. > > It's not in policy (but I don't think it has to be), but following the > conversation on #-ftp yesterday I opened: > > #895949 lintian: warn about packages with udebs but no udeb line in shlibs > #895953 lintian: check that shlibs-version >= higher-version-symbols-file > > The latter wouldn't enforce -V, but would check that we at least get a high > enough version in shlibs as compared to the .symbols file (and would have > solved > the zstd problem).
I like these bugs, and the patch to the latter one. -- Regards, Dimitri.
