> These both are verbatim from the output of dh_make. You could > file a bug there, but the maintainer would probably agree with > me that more comments in debian/rules is better than fewer. I agree, but then, those comments should be useful. dh_make's comments are useful, as long as you didn't add the commands to clean/build/install/whatever the package. After that, I don't see any point why they should be left there. > You could also suggest a rule for lintian that complains about > dh_make-like constructions in rules, similar to what it does for > debian/copyright and others. I actually changed the format of a > perfectly good debian/copyright file to make lintian shut up. This is too cosmetic, and as I explained in my mail, they do not worth a bugreport (nor a lintian check), since they do not really affect the package, only the look. And noone forbids one to do an awfully looking package, as long as it works as expected. > Perhaps the people responsible for these apparently bugless and > lintian-clean packages are now fixing real bugs. Sure, but while there, why not make it look good, along with making it work good? I'm not saying everyone should go and focus on these issues, but if you happen to do an upload anyway, why not?
Attachment:
pgpj06PTflSQm.pgp
Description: PGP signature