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

Re: Problems found by piuparts

On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 19:18 +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Note that individual maintainers can already configure dput to stop the
> upload on lintian/linda errors.

Yes, but the point raised was whether it would be better to centralise
that. There are a lot of opportunities to run lintian but appearently a
lot of packages with errors/warnings are being uploaded.

> > Since these tools can already differentiate between errors and warnings,
> > it would make sense to define the subset for rejection as "all errors".
> I'm afraid I have to disagree here. An old FSF address doesn't warrant a
> reject. Neither do false positives in lintian, they do happen (e.g. the
> last C++ transition would have been impeded, in fact l.d.o still shows
> lintian errors for "libfoo0c2a").
> Effectively, this would only foster an increase in questionable
> overrides. Lintian is a useful tool, but it's results need to be subject
> to review before filing bugs or doing rejects.

The original poster talked about a "subset of errors" to reject a
package on. I do think that introducing a third category of lintian
problems (warnings, errors, and now reject-errors) doesn't help, if we
want to go through with this, we need to clearly define what problems
are errors (i.e.: not acceptable in the archive) and reject them instead
of inventing another category.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: