Re: Lintian based autorejects
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> > And that justifies forcing these people to move your pet cosmetic
>> > issues to the top of their todo list?
>> Not my pet cosmetic issue. This is a decision taken by folks
>> in charge of the archive as to what belongs in the archive.
> That's a salient point here: Manoj is filing bugs for issues the FTP
> team has declared to be bugs. It's rather disingenuous to claim now that
> they are one person's “pet cosmetic issues”.
They are all violations of should and higher debian policy
directives. They are bugs, no question of that. I just let the ftp
master's decision allow me to file them as serious (too buggy to be
accepted in the archive), and I was pretty up front about mentioning
that in the bug report.
> If what you're doing has merit (and in this case I personally think it
> does), then discuss its merits instead of the flaws you see in others.
The facts on the ground are that currently, packages with these
bugs can't get into the archive. Personally, think the ftp masters are
as much in charge of the archive, as, say, the release team is in
charge of the release, and thus they have a say as to what gets
in. Steve does not agree, but that does not change that *today*,
these packages are too buggy to get in.
Now, once we go through the GR dance, the situation might
change. At that point, these bugs can be downgraded back to important.
But they remain valid bugs, and I am not going to not file valid
bugs against packages or ask permission, pretty please, so I might file
a bug to say that a package is buggy.
who spent over 30 hours checking for and filing 219 bugs against packages
which violate policy, and is getting somewhat irritated by all the
Well thaaaaaaat's okay.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C