Re: Lintian based autorejects
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:15:57AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>> E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
>>> Policy 9.2 does /not/ prohibit shipping files with owners outside these
>>> ranges; it prohibits relying on user or group IDs outside these ranges being
>>> static, but there doesn't appear to be anything in Policy that prohibits
>>> creating the user in the package preinst and then unpacking the package such
>>> that ownership is applied by /name/. (Unless I'm mistaken, this is
>>> precisely what dpkg does.)
>>> So false-positives are possible with this lintian check, and it should be
>> We currently only have 1 package in the whole archive triggering
>> this. Thats why it is listed.
>> Fine, moved to nonfatal.
> Yes, and that package is not a false-positive - it is genuinely broken and
> should be fixed. Still, the check itself is unreliable.
I must say, that's a pretty high level of reliability, certainly enough to
keep using "certain" as the certainty in Lintian. But yes, I suppose it
makes sense to let people override it in the rare case they want to do
> Absent a basis in Policy, "nothing uses it" is not really a reason to
> reject new packages that might start using it. AFAICS, this is
> basically an unreviewed lintian error.
Correct, I don't believe it's ever triggered. I suspect it doesn't matter
one way or the other what we do with it for that reason.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>