Re: Reviving Debian QA
>>>>> "John" == John Lapeyre <email@example.com> writes:
John> *Adam Di Carlo wrote:
joey> - Such packages have to call update-menus in their postinst and
joey> prerm scripts
>> This should simply be a lintian check, not a job for the manual
>> scrubbing of thousands of maintainer scripts.
John> I said this too, (it is currently a lintian check.) But no one
John> is forced to run lintian or pay attention if they do. And
John> lintian cannot check if there should be a menu entry if there is
John> not one, only if the menu entry is not implemented properly.
John> Wishlist bugs need to be filed for the doc and menu things.
John> Maybe the QA list could help to facilitate this.
Why not just extend lintian, or parse lintian report output, to be
able to submit bugs. We'd need to do a bit a work: (a) getting
approval from this list to submit bugs based on this or that lintian
tags (b) the actual work
I wouldn't mind the lintian maintainer's thoughts here.
John> Yes lintian should be used, but it is currently not effective
John> in getting the bugs fixed. I suppose if an error were reported
John> for each package which does not use doc-base, it would be
Well, technically, doc-base isn't required by Policy. So that work
would have to be done first.
John> btw. This (below) is what my potato dwww shows for "list of html
John> documents" Do I have to configure it, or somesuch, or is this
John> all there is ?
I dunno... I have a much larger list.
There are some serious design flaws in doc-base (and dwww) which I
hope to address soon.
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>