[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [jeroen@wolffelaar.nl: Re: Bug#385446: PTS: handling of udebs could be improved]

On Tuesday 05 September 2006 01:31, Max Vozeler wrote:
> - Adding a lintian override is wrong -- this isn't a very specific
>   exception that can't be fixed in lintian, if it's indeed so decided,
>   then lintian can easily not show this warning for udeb-only packages

I understood from Colin Watson that it is not all that easy to determine 
if a package contains _only_ udebs.
As having the lintian error was causing people to add back the S-V 
sometimes and as the error itself detracts from other (real) lintian 
warnings, I felt adding the override was useful.

> - I understand it's current practice, however, I think it is an
> unneeded practice. S-V is only in source packages, not in binary
> packages, so space considerations do not apply.  Policy still applies
> where possible to udebs, with the understanding that udebs don't follow
> policy on points where there's good reason to do so. It'd be best if
> also policy is updated to actually make an exception for those areas.

IMHO there is too little of policy that does apply to udebs to make it 
worth checking policy compliance. So adding S-V in the control file would 
probably only lead to us writing a script that would periodically do a 
blanket update for all udebs without actually checking anything.


Attachment: pgpfMZ0In4BrZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: