On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:27:40PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > 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.
Sure, but lacking /usr/share/doc is, aiui, a non-RC issue as it stands (since there seems to be some sort of deadlock in working out what to do about it)... > 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. Sure, getting looked at is fine. That's different from filing RC bugs, though. > > 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 Currently, aiui, lintian uses E: for problems that it's sure are mistakes, and W: for problems that it's only guessing are mistakes. I think that division is still useful. katie or testing could legitimately automatically reject packages with E! lintian errors, but not E- or W!, eg. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.'' -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
