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

Re: Lintian based autorejects

On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:06:25PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> If you do an NMU you hopefully will look at the lintian output of your
> upload. With old or hardly maintained packages that will be complicated
> because you have to look at the lintian messages for the unmodified
> packages and for the modified packages and check if anything is new and
> because of your modifications.

I do, and I've recently documented my NMU workflow (on my blog)
detailing that I consider mandatory to look at the *diff* between
lintian output in the version before the NMU and in the NMU-ed
version. I think you missed my point about doing an NMU that fixes only
one specific RC bug and that the delay of that NMU should be authorized
(by our best practices) on the basis of the age of that specific bug.

But let's drop this sub-topic, from the various replies I've read to the
NMU-issue originally raised by Brian May, I think we can agree that
there is consensus on considering it a non-issue: either you also fix
the blacklisted lintian error, or you refrain from NMUing.


PS most of the issues do indeed require single line fixes, but some
   of them requires more invasives changes, e.g. dir-or-file-in-var-www,
   since fixing that usually implies changing the interface of the user
   with the package (i.e. its URL)

Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: