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

Re: Reviving Debian QA

>>>>> "John" == John Lapeyre <lapeyre@physics.arizona.edu> 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
John> helpful.

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/>

Reply to: