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

Re: lintian whining about app-defaults file

phil@bolthole.com wrote:
>But this conflicts with 
>2. lintian is complaining that I did not specify a full path to the
>  app-defaults file, in "conffiles"
>and if a new revision of a package isn't lintian-clean, it's my
>understanding that it doesnt get put into the next release.

This isn't my understanding. Not all lintian errors and warnings are
release-critical. This one happens to be a "must" in policy, so in this
case it probably would indeed be a serious bug.

>The irritating/inconsistent thing is that if I had managed to get my SAME
>PACKAGE built a week ago, it would have been accepted no problem, but now I
>have to deal with this "new" constraint.


You seem to have a confused idea of where lintian fits into things - it
is intended to help you make sure your package follows policy, but it
doesn't set policy itself. It's not new releases of lintian that impose
things on you, it's new releases of the policy. The XFree86 app-defaults
amendment was accepted in debian-policy 3.5.2, released a month ago.

>The irony is: For my particular program, the standard "app-defaults" file

Take it up on debian-policy. lintian is doing the right thing and
following that.

Colin Watson                                     [cjw44@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: