Re: Lintian based autorejects
On Fri, Oct 30 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:
>
>> On a second read of the proposal, it occurred to me (and a handful of
>> other DDs in private communications agreed) that the above naming choice
>> of "warning" and "error" can be a bit unfortunate. In fact, lintian
>> already has its own notion of warning/error and having the naming
>> overloaded by dak messages that are based on lintian outcome can be
>> quite confusing.
>
>> Can you please consider changing the above naming?
>> The first alternative naming that comes to my mind is "non-fatal errors"
>> vs "fatal errors". It is not particularly exciting as a choice, but I
>> believe it would be better than warning/error.
>
> I think that's a good idea, particularly since I suspect that we'll
> upgrade anything in Lintian that's an automatic reject to serious
> severity, which will make most of them errors.
We should also review policy, and make sure that these rejects
are also linked to must directives in policy.
manoj
--
JOB PLACEMENT: Telling your boss what he can do with your job.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: