Re: lintian -- detecting hundrets of bugs within seconds...
>>"john" == john <email@example.com> writes:
john> Manoj writes:
>> This I don't understand. Why are we making it easy to distribute
>> packages with bugs? If the errors do not indicate bugs, why are
>> they errors?
john> I wrote:
>> Perhaps because they are bugs in lintian? I think lintian is a
>> good idea, but we have to have a way to override it. Surely you
>> don't expect it to be infallible!
john> Joost writes:
>> Fortunately, somebody who is capable of writing something like
>> lintian, is also capable of predicting that lintian will never be
>> perfect. That must be why, already in the initial announcement, the
>> authors said that everything would be overridable.
john> I know that. It appeared to me that Manoj was objecting to that
john> very thing.
I guess my concern was the possible dilution of the efficacy
of lintian by providing too facile a method of bypassing the errors
I would still prefer a less unobtrusive means of accommodating
possible shortcoming of lintian. Not only would it possibly prevent
fixing policy bugs in errant packages, it would also be less of an
incentive to fix lintian bugs, since a trivial workaround shall
If my concerns are indeed unfounded, I'll be happy.
Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an Art. Mencken
[Having the facts is hard. --ed]
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .