Le Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 12:41:50PM -0800, Michael Tautschnig a écrit : > > Instead, currently, they get distracted by many easy-to-spot errors > (including lintian warnings/errors, which really doesn't require one to be an > ftp-master to see...).
Hi everybody After reading the thread this morning, I really feel that there is a consensus that packages with "lintian errors" have to be rejected, ideally in an automagic manner. This is probably a good idea, with the caveat that it will make lintian and NEW interdependent in the same way that the "serious" bug severity has been phagocyted by policy bugs: expect complaints about the classification of lintian output based on the fact that it makes packages rejected. Nevertheless, for complete cleaning of "lintian warnings", I really think that the Project is going the wrong way. We start to micromanage Upstream code and accumulate patches that are definitely minor improvements, like adding whatis entries to manpages. We really should leverage Upstream's workforce and report the problems there instead of fixing them locally at the expense of our limited time. With this, "lintian warnings" become not only useful to Debian but also to the whole communauty, since when Upstream corrects his code and documentation, it benefits to all. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
