Re: Is it the job of Lintian to push an agenda?
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> P.S. I'm going to be adding an override in e2fsprogs for
> package-supports-alternative-init-but-no-init.d-script because it
> has false positives
Regardless of the specifics of this particular package if Lintian
could feasibly not emit this false-positive, would it surely not be
more sensible to get this fixed there instead?
That would not only be a cleaner solution than an override (which you
would likely just have to remove later...) it would be a general
kindness in that it could potentially save countless other developers
undergoing the same manual process as you.
> It most *definitely* is not certain.
Again, this sounds like something trivially addressed in Lintian
itself, or perhaps even by not reading too much into this apparently
entirely-adjunct advisory classification that is, after all, not
central to Lintian's operation.
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` lamby@debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Reply to: