Manoj Srivastava 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 arg
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> There are a few pedantic tags that I routinely ignore, usually because I
> can't easily do anything about them (like no-upstream-changelog).
I like to ask upstream to add a changelog for that. Also the
spelling-error-in-binary bugs I filed
Rogério Brito writes:
> On Oct 29 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> That was actually most of the point of pedantic. Minor possible bugs
>> that aren't stylistic belong in info instead. That's why both of them
>> are suppressed by default.
> OK. Nice. Please keep them there. We can just treat them
Hi, Russ.
On Oct 29 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> That was actually most of the point of pedantic. Minor possible bugs
> that aren't stylistic belong in info instead. That's why both of them
> are suppressed by default.
OK. Nice. Please keep them there. We can just treat them as pedantic and
not
Rogério Brito writes:
> On Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> I also think that style issues should not be a part of even
>>> Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably
>>> better style, then lintian should keep its nose out.
>> If
Raphael Geissert writes:
>> Pedantic tags are Lintian at its most pickiest and include
>> checks for particular Debian packaging styles, *checks that are
>> very frequently wrong*, and checks that many people disagree
>> with. Expect false positives and Lintian ta
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>>> I also think that style issues should not be a part of even
>>> Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably
>>> better style, then lintian should keep its nose
On Fri, Oct 23 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Friday 23 October 2009 11:15:16 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 23 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> > On Thursday 22 October 2009 22:37:54 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> >> > Manoj S
On Friday 23 October 2009 11:15:16 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > On Thursday 22 October 2009 22:37:54 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> >> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> >> I also think that style i
On Fri, Oct 23 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Thursday 22 October 2009 22:37:54 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> I also think that style issues should not be a part of even
>> >> Pedantic checks. If a pack
On Thursday 22 October 2009 22:37:54 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> I also think that style issues should not be a part of even
> >> Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably
> >> better style,
Dear all,
May I suggest to send general comments about Lintian to
lintian-ma...@debian.org instead of this list? I think that the point was made
that mentors have to take the packager’s experience into account when using
Lintian. Discussion is drifting on whether this or that check is not of
appro
On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Rogério Brito wrote:
> On Oct 22 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> I am all for idea if it is _my_ style which is selected, and every
>> one else's style will be warned against.
>
> I'm not all for the idea of having just one style. I knew that this
> objection would appear,
On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
>> I also think that style issues should not be a part of even
>> Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably
>> better style, then lintian should keep its nose out.
>
> If there's a better styl
On Oct 22 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Rogério Brito wrote:
> > Couldn't we have a category of warning/checks that is labelled
> > "stylistic"?
>
> Whose style would you choose?
Mine, of course. :-)
> I am all for idea if it is _my_ style which is selected, and e
On Thu, Oct 22 2009, Rogério Brito wrote:
> On Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> > I also think that style issues should not be a part of even
>> > Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably
>> > better style, then lintian should
On Oct 22 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > I also think that style issues should not be a part of even
> > Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably
> > better style, then lintian should keep its nose out.
>
> If there's a better style
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I also think that style issues should not be a part of even
> Pedantic checks. If a package is using a different, and arguably
> better style, then lintian should keep its nose out.
If there's a better style I guess nobody would object to consider recommend
it
On Wed, Oct 21 2009, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Pedantic tags are Lintian at its most pickiest and include
>> checks for particular Debian packaging styles, *checks that are
>> very frequently wrong*, and checks that many people disagree
>> with. Expect false posit
> Pedantic tags are Lintian at its most pickiest and include
> checks for particular Debian packaging styles, *checks that are
> very frequently wrong*, and checks that many people disagree
> with. Expect false positives and Lintian tags that you don't
> con
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> Err, no. Experienced developers might gain some benefit from
> [pedantic] reports. They are in a separate class for a reason. I do
> not think inexperienced people need look at these, there is already
> information overload for novices, let them first gain th
Charlie Smotherman writes:
> No sarcasm or disrespect intended, I actually thought I was being
> respectful, and polite waiting for the discussion of lintian (which I
> found very helpful) to be over before I requested sponsoring of
> ampache-themes.
There's no need to wait. The reason I changed
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 01:08:43PM -0500, Charlie Smotherman wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:27 +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 08:14:54AM -0500, Charlie Smotherman wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:48 PM, B
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:27 +0200, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 08:14:54AM -0500, Charlie Smotherman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ben Finney
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please join me in public embarrassme
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 08:14:54AM -0500, Charlie Smotherman wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ben Finney
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Please join me in public embarrassment of those who write changelog
> > > entries saying “make Lintian ha
On Wed, Oct 21 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> Jan Hauke Rahm writes:
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 04:12:21AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > There is a time and a place where these lintian options are
>> > useful. They certainly have a place, and are recommended for
>> > experienced devel
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 19:53 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ben Finney
> wrote:
>
> > Please join me in public embarrassment of those who write changelog
> > entries saying “make Lintian happy”, etc.
> >
> > Lintian is not a deity to be appeased; it's a tool reporting
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Please join me in public embarrassment of those who write changelog
> entries saying “make Lintian happy”, etc.
>
> Lintian is not a deity to be appeased; it's a tool reporting that the
> package might need fixing for explicit *reasons*, formul
Jan Hauke Rahm writes:
> Hi Manoj,
>
> I'm not going to argue with you about this.
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 04:12:21AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > There is a time and a place where these lintian options are
> > useful. They certainly have a place, and are recommended for
> > e
29 matches
Mail list logo
