Le Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 10:31:34AM +0200, Niels Thykier a écrit : > Antoine Le Gonidec: > > Le Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 09:41:58AM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine a écrit : > > > IMHO, in order for Lintian's severity levels to be meaningful in > > > determining a package's fitness for inclusion in the Debian > > > repository, an Error ought to refer to a MUST[NOT] Policy item, while > > > a Warning ought to refer to a SHOULD[NOT] Policy item. > > > > I second this suggestion, keeping in mind that in some cases it might be > > better to update the Policy instead of lintian. > > > > Coming from another angle, what is the problem you are trying to solve by > re-calibrating all the severity levels? To me, this declaration smells like > a "solution" but I am not sure I understand the "problem" it is supposed to > solve. I can not speak for Martin-Éric, but I can tell you why I support their proposal: the current lintian priorities only tell us what should be fixed in a given package to please… well, lintian itself. It does not really tell us if a package is fit for integration into the Debian archive according to the only authoritative document about said integration: the Debian Policy. In my packaging activities, it means I often spend time "fixing" things that were not actual packaging problems to begin with. If I could run lintian in some "Policy compliance" mode (or if such mode was its default), I could much more easily avoid this extra work, and put that time in other packaging activities instead.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature