On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 12:23:46PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > PS lintian has a warning-level tag about that [2], which reports 250
> > packages vs 279 reported by my script. I'll check where the
> > differences come from before actually reporting the bugs.
> >
> Isn't the lintian warning enough? Or do we actually need the bugs for
> some reason?
My recalling of how we've handled this large scale transitions in the
past (hello /usr/doc) is that lintian usually goes a long way to reach a
critical mass of the migration, but that at some point you need to be a
bit more pushy than that.
There are various ways of being more pushy, one can be to raise the
lintian report level to error, but I believe in this case an explicit
bug report could be more useful (beside also enabling maintainers to
mark the change as pending in $VCS). Finally, some packages might have
been uploaded before the lintian warning was introduced and the
maintainers might have honestly missed the message. A bug report will
fix that.
I agree with Cyril that packages affected by this might be neglected,
but I don't want to entangle the two QA efforts. Maybe, if we go for the
MBF and tag the bugs properly, the presence of this bug can be perused
by monitors like bapase [1] as extra data to identify neglected
packages?
Cheers.
[1] http://udd.debian.org/bapase.cgi
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature