Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> writes: > Ah. I have a few of those. For example, take this warning from > Lintian: description-synopsis-might-not-be-phrased-properly
> This is not policy, but dev-ref, Fixed the cross-reference, which was simply wrong. > and when it was proposed, it was argued that if we had a non clause, > the front ends can make it look "nicer", by completing the sentence, > adding the period, etc, (perhaps by showing "Package" is a <short > description> . That was around 6 years or so ago. [...] > And why is this a warning as opposed to an informational > message? How is the package impacted by having a gosh darned period in > the short description? This is the same level of impairment as the > other non info warnings? seriously? Thisis not a severity normal bug. > It is not even a severity wishlist bug. It is a style issue. I think an argument could be made that it's a severity: minor bug from a consistency perspective, but not normal. I've therefore now downgraded it to severity: minor, which I think more accurately represents how important it is. Since it's also certainty: possible, this downgrades it to an info-level tag. > Things like that are why I take every lintian warning with a > huge grain of salt. Any others? :) > Ideally, Errors should correlate to important+ bugs, and must > violations, I think, warnings are bugs (minor and normal) and should > violations, and everything wishlist ought to be a informational > message. Style things belong in experimental. And, to give credit where > it is due, the majority of the tags are listed at their proper > severity. But by no means all of them are. Style things belong in pedantic, unless they're fairly widely agreed-on, in which case they belong as severity: minor. In general, though, I agree with the above. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
