Re: Lintian based autorejects
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> Michael Banck wrote:
>> Hi Manoj,
>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:03:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
>>> make the package too buggy to be in Debian
>> Please respect the tradition and discuss mass-filing of bugs on
> It seems that many of the bugs have a chance of false positives or
> should not be RC.
Which is why I checked. Out of the 97 candidates of the
copyright being a dh template, only 3 bugs were filed: the ones not a
> Besides if policy is not meant as normative as you regulary claim,
Rubbish. Policy is normative. Shit does not go into policy to
beat people on the head with, but anything in policy is stuff you
> then these are very probably bugs in policy. As there are for some
> categories of bugs you files many packages not conforming. So either
> policy is wrong there or policy is normative which would mean that
> there are a lof of other bugs in policy that noone cares about fixing
> (or even filing).
Which I plan on also filing bugs on, since policy is indeed
normative. Get your act together, people.
Never forget what a man says to you when he is angry.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C