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

Re: Lintian based autorejects

Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:

> I was splitting the issues in two sub-issues actually: (1) being sure
> that lintian "E:" messages are only those coming from violated "must"
> requirements, (2) deciding which among them are upload blockers.

> I confess I was pretty much assuming that lintian maintainers ensure (1)
> is always verified.  Beside bugs in lintian that can always, I now
> realize that (1) is probably not so strict. For instance, for OCaml
> packages we do have custom lintian checks that do not appear in policy,
> but rather in our own packaging policy, but which we do want to be
> "E:". Surely we do not want those to be upload blockers.

Right.  Lintian E: tags are not now and never have been only Policy must
directives.  They correspond to tags that, were one to file a bug about
them, would be either severity serious or higher or severity important
with a certainty of possible or higher.  This includes things that aren't
in Policy at all but that denote broken packages, Policy should directives
that are easy to fix, misuses of tools according to the documentation of
that tool that aren't mentioned in Policy at all, and a few other things.

> All in all, your requirement can be probably be implemented by setting
> the general rule that all upload blockers should match violated "must"
> requirements, no matter who is in charge of defining the list.

I do think it's reasonable to not allow people to upload packages with
obvious and easily-correctable errors even if they're not must directives,
although I suppose we could implement that by upgrading all such errors
to must in Policy.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: