Hi, On Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2009, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 at 15:06:07 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > The second category is named "error" and the tags listed can not be > > overridden. > > I don't think it's appropriate to make, for instance, > dir-or-file-in-var-www instantly fatal without following the usual > mass-bug-filing procedure. If you'd like mass bugs to be filed based on > these lintian tags but don't have time, let me know if I can help (I can't > promise to deal with all of them). > > I'm not arguing that dir-or-file-in-var-www is not a bug - it is - but it's > a technical problem that needs a transition (moving files around, > reconfiguration, probably a migration path in many cases), rather than just > some incorrect boilerplate in debian/copyright that can easily be fixed > before uploading. Thankfully, we have a procedure to deal with buggy > packages, i.e. a bug tracking system :-) together with processes for NMU or > removal of packages that are too buggy. +1 from me for these two paragraphs. Currently I have no idea how to fix any issues with munin in unstable (as I dont have a migration plan/path for /var/www/munin which I like/consider sensible) and the idea to upload munin 1.4 (which is scheduled for release in November/December this year) to experimental is stalled atm too, for the same reason. Which IMO is pretty sad. > I'm in favour of auto-rejecting packages with very serious packaging > problems, but auto-rejecting makes bugs "worse than RC", so IMO it's > necessary to be more conservative about existing packages +1 again. > - if your package > has an RC bug open, you can still upload it to fix other (possibly RC) > bugs, but if your package is being auto-rejected, you have no choice but to > fix the auto-reject before the next (successful) upload. > > I realise this is somewhat deliberate, to give maintainers a strong > incentive to fix their packages. However, it seems disproportionate: we > don't enforce that for RC bugs, even those with severity 'critical', so > this is effectively creating a class of bugs more severe than 'critical'. > It seems unwise to do that without the relevant bugs at least being tracked > as RC first! > > Some examples of tags I consider reasonable to auto-reject, because they > should be easy to fix (but many of them should be bug reports anyway): > - binary-file-compressed-with-upx > - copyright-lists-upstream-authors-with-dh_make-boilerplate > - missing-dependency-on-perlapi > - section-is-dh_make-template > > Some examples of tags where I do not consider this reasonable until bugs > have been filed: > - statically-linked-binary > - mknod-in-maintainer-script > - debian-rules-not-a-makefile > - dir-or-file-in-var-www Again, +1. regards, Holger
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.