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

Re: Opinions needed: reporting lintian overrides

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On la, 2008-01-05 at 13:43 +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > As you might expect (as I was the requester for this feature) I'd
> > *really* prefer the former option. My initial reasoning for it is that
> > I want to make it immediately visible to sponsors if a package has
> > suppressed lintian warnings. If it's not the default behaviour to list
> > them, then I'd be worried that some people just won't notice.
> This might be too much DWIM, but... supposed lintian would, by default,
> report the number of suppressed warnings, but only if the person running
> it is not the maintainer? Lintian could use the same logic for
> determining the name/address as dch does.

I like that. :) 

So if DEBEMAIL/EMAIL doesn't match Maintainer/Uploaders then you get to see the
N: lines.

> Additionally, there should then be options like
> --never-summarize-overrides and --always-summarize-overrides.


Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :

Reply to: