On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:30:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > I'd encourage the lintian maintainer ( :) ) to automatically file "old > standards version" bugs about such packages (of normal/minor/wishlist > severity); and I'd definitely encourage the lintian maintainer to file > serious bugs about automatically detect-able violations of any MUST > directives in current policy (no matter what standards-version the > packages claims to comply with). >
I file any bugs I detect, once I get lintian running on the archive, old packages beware (-: A package of 2.x policy behaves in a way different than current packages. They lack a /usr/share/doc, their manpages are not in share either. They may violate other things. Point is, these packages will be a source of bugs. All I am asking for is the package get looked at. I found one today that had not been touched in 2 years. Ther eare many others, and they hide. If nothing else a way to flag packages older than X months or Standards-Version YY would be nice. > > Shaleh, I'm not sure I got around to filing a bug against lintian about this, > but it'd be nice if lintian differentiated between MUST/SHOULD/MAY violations > in its output. Something like: > > E!: non-FHS-directory > E-: missing-manpage > E?: standards-version-uses-4-digits-not-3 > when I rewrite lintian (started yesterday) the lintian messages will match policy: Error (E:) -- violate a MUST Warning (W:) -- violate a SHOULD XXXXXXX (?:) -- a MAY is not followed not sure what I am naming the MAY message. Messages that are not due to policy violations will have their level set on the importance of the problem. With this restructuring, a Developer who gets a third level may ignore the message, ignore a Warning for a short time and know that E: means 'I should read policy'.
