Neil Williams wrote:
> Daniel: would you agree?
Let's get this once and for all clear:
Given that lintian, as any automatic tool, can not catch all flaws in
every case, manuall listing of the remaining flaws is always needed, I
don't really care about if I need to point these flaws out in addition
again and again, so there is *factually* no need to have an agreement
with me anywhere :)
However, as mentioned several times already, I'm asking not only to
sponsor packages which do work, but also to keep packaging simple and
cover the *IMHO* most ugly flaws in packaging style, be it inconsistent
use of Homepage: in control, or useless empty lines at the end of files,
or...
Of course, YMMV and other people cleary don't give a shit about what I
consider to be beautiful or not. If a sponsoree disagrees with my
intention to have not only good but beautiful packages, he is always
free to look for another sponsor with different standards.
wrt/ lintian, as long as the packages do work, the purely optional
matter of style questions[0] should never be part of any lintian check
(lintian shall only check for policy violations or general package
breakages). That is why I never would have had the idea to submit these
two mentioned things to the lintian maintainers.
Anyway, thank you Mikhail for taking notice about the reoccurance of
these things and the good intention to make things easier. It is
nevertheless appreciated.
[0] although the Homepage field is defined in the dev ref, which could
be seen as a strong recommendation, and therefore theoreticaly could
also be considered for a lintian check (no worries, I don't).
--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
