Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> Also, if packages have lintian errors/warnings, please provide a link to
> the proper full list of errors and warnings for the maintainer.
Did you read my original email? :)
Let me quote it for you:
> === libflexmock-ruby:
> = Lintian reports 3 warning
can be safely ignored, it will be a net loss
> >> for QA.
>
> Of course, and that's exactly what am trying to avoid. What about the
> following combination?
>
> * Lintian issues by themselves do not cause the email to be sent
> * Only lintian errors cause a given package
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:07:55 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Of course, and that's exactly what am trying to avoid. What about the
> following combination?
>
> * Lintian issues by themselves do not cause the email to be sent
> * Only lintian errors cause a given package to
d. What about the
following combination?
* Lintian issues by themselves do not cause the email to be sent
* Only lintian errors cause a given package to be mentioned in the email,
not warnings.
* Errors and warnings counts are both included.
Or the following one:
* Lintian issues by themselves do not ca
her issue exists for the same given
>> package? or only errors if there's an issue for any of the
>> co-/maintained packages?
>
> I'm fine with mentioning the lintian errors and warnings in the mail,
> with that not being a reason to send that email. However, onl
On 2009-04-30, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 30/04/09 at 01:43 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> But despite all that my original question hasn't quite been answered. Gregor
>> is in favour of sending messages even if only lintian issues exist, but
>> Lucas doesn't like the idea.
>> What about someth
On 30/04/09 at 01:43 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> But despite all that my original question hasn't quite been answered. Gregor
> is in favour of sending messages even if only lintian issues exist, but
> Lucas doesn't like the idea.
> What about something in between? only errors if another issue
a. What about something in
> between? only errors if another issue exists for the same given
> package? or only errors if there's an issue for any of the
> co-/maintained packages?
I'm fine with mentioning the lintian errors and warnings in the mail,
with that not being a reason to
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Geissert writes:
>> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
>>> Then how about sending a mail if one of the packages has (serious,
>>> certain) lintian errors?
>
>> Lintian currently still uses the EWI code when generating the report
>
Raphael Geissert writes:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> Then how about sending a mail if one of the packages has (serious,
>> certain) lintian errors?
> Lintian currently still uses the EWI code when generating the report
> which later udd imports. This file lacks the s
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> Then how about sending a mail if one of the packages has (serious,
> certain) lintian errors?
Lintian currently still uses the EWI code when generating the report which
later udd imports. This file lacks the severity and certainty information,
which means it
f one of the packages has (serious,
> certain) lintian errors?
I like modularity.
- ddpo-by-mail already mails about RC bugs.
- (serious, certain) lintian errors warrant RC bugs [1]
=> THEN (serious, certain) lintian errors should be filed as RC bugs.
You gain the following:
1) no need to
On 27/04/09 at 15:23 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >
> > I really don't think that we should send emails to maintainers if they
> > only have lintian errors (no other problems, like RC bugs). If those
> > lintian errors are so grave,
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> I really don't think that we should send emails to maintainers if they
> only have lintian errors (no other problems, like RC bugs). If those
> lintian errors are so grave, maybe (RC) bugs should be filed?
Every check has a severity and certainty, so
On 26/04/09 at 12:00 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:37:04 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
> > Would it be ok to leave it that way? or only mention lintian errors? or only
> > when the same package has serious issues? or only when the same package
>
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:37:04 -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Would it be ok to leave it that way? or only mention lintian errors? or only
> when the same package has serious issues? or only when the same package
> does *not* have any serious issue? or any combination of those?
Hi all,
Most of those reading this email probably already know about it: I'm taking
over ddpo-by-mail. And so I decided to include the number of lintian errors
and warnings on the generated emails, but those not being a reason for the
message to be sent (i.e. it requires that an RC bug e
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reports on lintian.debian.org have revealed some startling
> figures:
>
> Warnings:10188
> Errors:6995
> A notable number of these are not very important, but quite a lot are
> policy violations. Is anybody planning to file RC bugs on these?
It wo
On 25-Aug-2001 Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The reports on lintian.debian.org have revealed some startling
> figures:
>
> Warnings:10188
> Errors:6995
>
> ancient-standards-version (158 packages, 158 tags)
>
> maybe be harmless, but...
>
> FSSTND-dir-in-usr (103 packages, 128 tags)
> no-copyright-
The reports on lintian.debian.org have revealed some startling
figures:
Warnings:10188
Errors:6995
ancient-standards-version (158 packages, 158 tags)
maybe be harmless, but...
FSSTND-dir-in-usr (103 packages, 128 tags)
no-copyright-file (13 packages, 13 tags)
are not funny.
A notable number o
20 matches
Mail list logo
