Re: The wider implications of stuffing the NEW queue with issues it was not designed for.
On 2009-07-23, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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?
That would have prevented this indeed. But it looks that it did not work
that way because the only override present was this one:
This obviously didn't need changing. According to  there was also no
other Lintian warning.