Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I submit that lintian warnings are entirely out of scope for the task the > project has entrusted to the ftp team, and that mentioning this at all as a > factor in making the NEW queue "painless" indicates there's a problem with > the process as implemented. > > - lintian *warnings* are those points that even the lintian maintainers are > not confident are always indicative of bugs. There's really no reason for > the ftp team to look at these as a condition for NEW acceptance.
Minor correction: lintian warnings are those points that the Lintian maintainers are either not confident are indicative of bugs or indicate bugs that are not severity important or higher. > - Even with lintian errors, there are many that are definitely bugs but > which should not be grounds for a reject from the archive because they're > *minor* bugs, and the ftp team should not be in the business of enforcing > lintian cleanness as a condition of acceptance into the archive because > this is (and always will be) a false measure of package quality.[1] There should be no minor-severity bugs that result in lintian errors. If there are, that's a bug in Lintian. Please report it. The lowest threshold that produces an E tag is severity: important, likelihood: possible. The severity classifications are new, based on a GSoC project by Jordà Polo (who did an excellent job), and have only been checked over comprehensively a few times. There may be misclassifications remaining, which we'd be happy to fix. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
