Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 argued that if we had a non clause,
> the front ends can make it look "nicer", by completing the sentence,
> adding the period, etc, (perhaps by showing "Package" is a <short
> description> . That was around 6 years or so ago.
> And why is this a warning as opposed to an informational
> message? How is the package impacted by having a gosh darned period in
> the short description? This is the same level of impairment as the
> other non info warnings? seriously? Thisis not a severity normal bug.
> It is not even a severity wishlist bug. It is a style issue.
I think an argument could be made that it's a severity: minor bug from a
consistency perspective, but not normal. I've therefore now downgraded it
to severity: minor, which I think more accurately represents how important
it is. Since it's also certainty: possible, this downgrades it to an
> Things like that are why I take every lintian warning with a
> huge grain of salt.
Any others? :)
> Ideally, Errors should correlate to important+ bugs, and must
> violations, I think, warnings are bugs (minor and normal) and should
> violations, and everything wishlist ought to be a informational
> message. Style things belong in experimental. And, to give credit where
> it is due, the majority of the tags are listed at their proper
> severity. But by no means all of them are.
Style things belong in pedantic, unless they're fairly widely agreed-on,
in which case they belong as severity: minor. In general, though, I agree
with the above.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>