Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:12:57AM +0000, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2009-07-19, Charles Plessy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past by
> > willingfully upload packages with overriden lintian errors?
> Damaged the project... no. Caused a RC bug to be overlooked... yes.
> I recently encountered a package where the library's binary package
> was not named after the SONAME. This caused a lintian error which was...
> overridden. And it broke horribly when the SONAME change went unnoticed
> because... well... the binary was never named after the SONAME and thus
> the check wasn't active anymore.
Lintian's error on soname mismatches references both the binary package
name, and what lintian thinks the package name should be based on the actual
soname. AFAIK you can only override lintian errors by spelling them out
fully, so surely the lintian error should have reappeared in this case as
soon as the soname changed?
Or did the maintainer willfully update the override *as well* when the
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/