Re: Lintian based autorejects
On Mon, Nov 02 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> Exactly, I have only a limited amount of time and don't want to spend it
> on demotivating discussions with Manoj about why he uses two standards.
> Though just ignoring these is also of no help, so in general I just
> point out when he does it (probably not in a very objective way due to
> how hard it demotivates me to see people in such positions doing that).
If you could actually point out which two standards I am using,
it could be somewhat useful. But in this case you were factually
incorrect, in others you jump to conclusions and ascribe motivations to
me that you make out of whole cloth, and none of that is even remotely
> For the actual matter at hand I think it's very wrong to do a MBF
> without going through d-devel for several reasons:
> - it gives developers a chance to fix bugs before they are filed to
> decrease high bug traffic that is normal for MBFs
The same developers who have been ignoring lintian telling them
that their packages are buggy for ages?
> - it gives developers a chance to discuss the severity and tags that
> should be used without the need to change them afterwards
There are standard definitions for tags for bugs that are
violations of must directives in policy (look at policy and bugs.d.o),
as well as packages determined too buggy to be in the archive by folks
to are in charge of what goes in the archive.
Any opinion contrary to that would not likely have changed my
set of bug filings at all.
> - it gives developers a chance to change the preconditions for bugs
> before they are filed
Why was this not done long ago, when lintian has been screaming
its little head off?
> - it gives developers a chance to share ideas on how to fix the bugs and
> include that information in the bug reports
They can do so now. It is not as if these bugs did not have a
> - it gives developers a chance to update any relevant documentation
> before the bugs are filed
Why had this not been done when lintian was warning them about
these errors, then?
Trespassers will be violated!
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C