On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>when I rewrite lintian (started yesterday) the lintian messages will match
>policy:
>
>Error (E:) -- violate a MUST
>Warning (W:) -- violate a SHOULD
>XXX (?:) -- a MAY is not followed
Advisory (A:)?
>not sure what I am naming the MAY messag
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 04:31:39PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The best check for the /usr/doc/foo -> /usr/share/doc/foo transition is to
> check for the standards version. If we want to finish this transition for
> woody someone has to:
> - file RC bugs for standards version < 3.0
> - later check
On 21-Feb-2001 Bob Hilliard wrote:
> "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Error (E:) -- violate a MUST
>> Warning (W:) -- violate a SHOULD
>> XXX (?:) -- a MAY is not followed
>
> There should be no Lintian messages regarding MAY items. If any
> such thing is conside
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Error (E:) -- violate a MUST
> Warning (W:) -- violate a SHOULD
> XXX (?:) -- a MAY is not followed
There should be no Lintian messages regarding MAY items. If any
such thing is considered to warrant a Lintian Warning or Error
message
>>
>> no, it tries to do this based on 2.x level MUST/SHOULD and the authors
>> beliefs
>> of severity. Has nothing to do with the sureness of the test.
>
> When did this change, then? Christian and I designed it the way Anthony
> described it.
>
Gecko did some, new checks added between him a
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > 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)...
> > In a message sent in this thread only a good hour before this mail you
> > sa
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:07:01AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:27:40PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > Sure, but lacking /usr/share/doc is, aiui, a non-RC issue as it stands
> > (since there seems to be some sort of dead
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 01:31:30AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Reading the rest of the thread, I sense there's a consnsensus that it'd be
> ok to file such bugs if they weren't rc, at least. So 578 priority
> normal bugs coming right up unless someone tells me otherwise.
I'm sure you've got a better
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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.
>
Joey Hess wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > And more serious: If you want to force the upgrade of the standards
> > version you must file 579 RC bugs on these packages.
>
> I would be happy to do that to tell the truth, if it meant we got half
> of them updated to current standards before the freeze
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> And more serious: If you want to force the upgrade of the standards
> version you must file 579 RC bugs on these packages.
I would be happy to do that to tell the truth, if it meant we got half
of them updated to current standards before the freeze.
(I had pretty good luck wi
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:16:14PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 12:39:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 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
> > divisio
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 12:39:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > > 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
>
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 no
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
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:30:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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
Yes, real
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:49:34PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, I grabbed fmirror today because an admin friend suggested it. I cd'ed to
> /usr/share/doc/fmirror and low and behold, no /usr/share/doc/fmirror. I check
> the changelog and this binary-any package has not been uploaded in
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 at 12:49:34 -0800 (PST), Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, I grabbed fmirror today because an admin friend suggested it. I
> cd'ed to /usr/share/doc/fmirror and low and behold, no
> /usr/share/doc/fmirror. I check the changelog and this binary-any
> package has not been uploade
On 20-Feb-2001 Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, I grabbed fmirror today because an admin friend suggested it. I cd'ed to
> /usr/share/doc/fmirror and low and behold, no /usr/share/doc/fmirror. I
> check
> the changelog and this binary-any package has not been uploaded in 2 years.
> It
> is stan
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:49:34PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, I grabbed fmirror today because an admin friend suggested it. I cd'ed to
> /usr/share/doc/fmirror and low and behold, no /usr/share/doc/fmirror. I check
> the changelog and this binary-any package has not been uploaded in
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010220 12:49]:
> > So, perhaps we should drop the bar a little. If your package is not
> > at least 3.x.x, it gets held.
>
> I second this.
So do I. 2.x doesn't get the GPL copyright, FHS or logrotate ri
>
> And more serious: If you want to force the upgrade of the standards
> version you must file 579 RC bugs on these packages.
>
sounds like a plan to me. Many of these are either:
a) horribly out of date
b) simply forgot to change the number
* Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010220 13:52]:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > So, perhaps we should drop the bar a little. If your package is not at
> > least
> > 3.x.x, it gets held.
> And just out of curiosity: apt has standards version 2.4.1
That is interesting. Of
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, I grabbed fmirror today because an admin friend suggested it. I cd'ed to
> /usr/share/doc/fmirror and low and behold, no /usr/share/doc/fmirror. I check
> the changelog and this binary-any package has not been uploaded in 2 years.
> It
> is
Hi Sean!
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> So, perhaps we should drop the bar a little. If your package is not at least
> 3.x.x, it gets held.
make it so
yours,
peter
--
PGP signed and encrypted
* Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20010220 12:49]:
> So, perhaps we should drop the bar a little. If your package is not
> at least 3.x.x, it gets held.
I second this.
--
Martin Michlmayr
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
26 matches
Mail list logo
