On Tuesday 4 December 2007 16:51, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > > I read that as "it's ok if you have a good reason". Therefore, I think a > > lintian warning would be more appropriate than an error. Attached patch > > implements this change. Please consider applying it. > > That seems to be a good case for an lintian override in your package > then, leaving the check at E:?! I'm not so sure - if policy says "should" not "must", then a "warning" seems more appropriate than an "error" to me. Thijs
Attachment:
pgp1BKPeIsg75.pgp
Description: PGP signature