[Gustavo Franco] > I won't waste my time writing a patch without hear Lars' and lintian > maintainers opinions first. Fair enough, but your original statement was, IMO, too vague. You said "some of" the piuparts-detected problems looked as though lintian should be able to catch them, but you didn't say anything about which ones. We are all in favor of lintian catching valid bugs. Or did you expect to hear comments like "no, more lintian tests would be a bad idea"? > You can get away with your rudeness and came up with a patch before > me, because it seems that you just don't care about *comments*. Well, I was hoping you could be more specific. It's hard to have a comment on your ideas if you don't explain what they are (with or without a patch). For example, if you had said "I think many cases of using ucf in a postrm script, without testing for its availablility, should be possible to catch with a lintian test", then we could say "yes, that seems feasible", or "no, that doesn't seem feasible", or even "I think that's such a great idea that I've gone ahead and written the test". As it happens, I think that particular example is probably feasible, though there's no practical way for it to catch all cases of this.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature