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

Re: Proposed MBF: packages defining useless RPATH's

This one time, at band camp, Raphael Geissert said:
> More than one month ago I posted a list[1] of packages defining useless 
> rpath's on amd64 based on an archive wide lintian check.


> If no one objects I'll start MBF within a week or, if encouraged to and with 
> no objection, probably during the week.

This one time, at band camp, Raphael Hertzog said:
> MBF is important when you plan to make an NMU campaign to correct all the
> packages... but just reporting the problem is useless because lintian does
> that very well already. And if lintian doesn't, then you can invest the
> time that you put in this MBF in a lintian patch. :-)

I don't think I'm in favor of this particular issue, if only because
it's too much effort for too little gain.  But it's important to
remember when raising the lintian objection that there are two problems
with it: not everyone builds on 64 bit arches (32 bit builds won't show
the problem, and lintian will stay quiet), and we don't seem to have (or
it isn't heavily advertised) a multi architecture aware lintian web site
(also, linitan.d.o seems down at the moment, but that's another issue).

If we had a place where maintainers could easily check the results of
lintian on platforms other than their own, I'd happily jump in and agree
that MBF's for lintian issues is mostly a waste of time.
|   ,''`.                                            Stephen Gran |
|  : :' :                                        sgran@debian.org |
|  `. `'                        Debian user, admin, and developer |
|    `-                                     http://www.debian.org |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: