Re: NEW processing
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:03:49PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> > I submit that lintian warnings are entirely out of scope for the task the
> > project has entrusted to the ftp team, and that mentioning this at all as a
> > factor in making the NEW queue "painless" indicates there's a problem with
> > the process as implemented.
> > - lintian *warnings* are those points that even the lintian maintainers are
> > not confident are always indicative of bugs. There's really no reason for
> > the ftp team to look at these as a condition for NEW acceptance.
> Minor correction: lintian warnings are those points that the Lintian
> maintainers are either not confident are indicative of bugs or indicate
> bugs that are not severity important or higher.
Right - sorry for the imprecision.
> > - Even with lintian errors, there are many that are definitely bugs but
> > which should not be grounds for a reject from the archive because they're
> > *minor* bugs, and the ftp team should not be in the business of enforcing
> > lintian cleanness as a condition of acceptance into the archive because
> > this is (and always will be) a false measure of package quality.
> There should be no minor-severity bugs that result in lintian errors. If
> there are, that's a bug in Lintian. Please report it. The lowest
> threshold that produces an E tag is severity: important, likelihood:
I know this is the current lintian policy on E vs. W, but that this wasn't
the case historically. Is this the case for lintian 1.24? I believe that's
the version in use on ftp-master currently. (It also appears to be the
version that will be shipping with lenny?)
And even under the new classification, "possibly important" bugs are still a
far cry from things that should be treated as reasons for rejects, IMHO.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/