On 2015-07-25 05:54:49 [+0200], Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! Hi Guillem, > > As for the severity: Surely, it could be bumped, but given it is not a > > tag people can always trivially fix (possibly breaking ABI is not my > > definition of "trivial"), I am not necessarily convince it is in our > > best interest to be very loud with this tag. That said, I can be > > convinced otherwise as long as it does *not* lead to """blindly "fixed" > > lintian tag syndrome""". > > Perhaps it could be bumped for binary packages that do not contain any > shared library, but I'm assuming that is not currently possible(?). > > In any case, even packages that do not trigger the lintian warning are > not guaranteed to be LFS-safe, this needs either testing or code review.
and now? Should one go around and open bugs with patches for packages showing up in the warning? The BTS has a few open bugs tagged LFS so I could start with those once I get bored. The BUG severity for the LFS bugs would be `normal` normal I guess since it is not a release goal. Or is down to `wishlist`? > Thanks, > Guillem Sebastian
