On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:02:10PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > I think that some of these checks are ‘bikeshedding’ my work as a packager, > enforcing a parallel and undocumented Policy, and lessering the usefuleness of > Lintian now that some Lintian warnings are FTPmaster errors and vice-versa. > > I will not oppose further, but I think that this effort is mostly a waste of > time and increasing of bureaucracy. It also creates a more complex mechanism > at > our archive level, which raises the bar for new contributors.
I think you are exaggerating a bit here. Most lintian errors denote RC
bugs, the fact that packages with such errors are uploaded nevertheless
is a problem. We might wonder why that happens, but a part of the reason
is surely maintainers not looking at lintian and/or forgetting about
overriding them when actually needed. Adding a rejection based on that
surely is a new extra check which you might want to define bureaucratic,
but it will indubitably reduce the number of packages in the archive
with lintian error (by definition).
So, IMO, the only point really worth being discussed is the list of
lintian errors for which dak will not accept maintainer overrides. That
might be problematic because it is really a distrust in the uploader
(which, unfortunately, it is something that at times grow into us, given
the kind of unappropriate overrides we sometime happen to notice).
I'm tempted to propose to not have such a list of non overrodable errors
in dak at all, or at least I would like to have a more liberal way of
maintaining such list (e.g. a list maintained in the QA VCS or
similar).
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
