On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 07:24:25AM +0000, Phil Wyett wrote: > On Wed, 2025-01-22 at 20:52 -0500, Glenn Strauss wrote: > > > > PLEASE NOTE: **none** of the issues you raised are reported on > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/lighttpd > > > > PLEASE NOTE: **all** of the issues you raised are present in the prior > > lighttpd package. Why is this suddenly a blocker to release rather than > > suggestions for a future release? > > The lintian elements raised to be looked at were not blocking.
I appreciate the response. Please take a moment to review my broader critique that *everything* in the wall of text you posted was pre-existing in the lighttpd package and should have been reported on tracker.d.o, *especially* any issue that would be Release Critical (RC) blocking for a future release. If you review other RFS, kindly highlight the blocking issues separately from the wall of text on non-blocking issues since outsiders like myself do not immediately sniff out the Release Critical (RC) policies. That said, there are some things which make Debian look very foolish, such as the waste of resources running a spell checker on binaries implied by I: lighttpd: spelling-error-in-binary ment meant [usr/lib/lighttpd/mod_ssi.so] There is no such "ment" spelling error in lighttpd src/mod_ssi.c and I am annoyed having wasted my time to contradict the lintian noise. Debian would look less foolish and maybe lintian would be taken more seriously if the signal to noise ratio in lintian was much higher. > License issues are not detailed on the package tracker unless filed as an RC > bug. I may be in error here and I am sure more correct information will be > supplied if so. So license issues, which are classified as Release Criticial (RC) are not detailed on the package tracker, but lintian warnings (not RC) are? I hope you see the incongruity of that. Please file some debian bugs, as appropriate, if you think my critiques of the Debian processes have merit. Thank you. Glenn
