[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Lintian based autorejects

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 12:05:39PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> [091101 11:23]:
> > Some problems I find with this list:

> I think some of those complaints show a general disagreement about
> what aims Debian has. Are we here to gain for quality or is allowing
> the maximum amount of (free) software the primary goal?

There's an expression: "you get what you test for."  When you reject
packages for failing specific quality checks, this does not ensure that you
end up with packages of a higher quality overall, it only ensures that you
end up with packages that pass those specific tests.  And when the tests
you've chosen to enforce are for low-impact issues, as is the case for most
of those that I've objected to, then treating these as fatal when we know
there are other, *higher* impact bugs that we can't or don't test for
results in a distorted focus on passing the test instead of on making the
package high-quality throughout.

I would much rather see maintainers focus on fixing
policy-compliant-but-broken-by-design config file handling in their packages
than worrying about whether their package has an extra build-dependency with
no practical effect.

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/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: