Bug#743694: Downgrade most of privacy-breach* tags from severity: error to pedantic
Hi Daniel!
Thanks for your bug report.
* Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert@wgdd.de>, 2014-04-05, 13:01:
Because the severity of these lintian checks is relevant to the
decision, if a package gets accepted into Debian I've added the FTP
masters team this report to get their point of view.
Not sure what you mean here. Would you care to elaborate why would
ftp-masters be concerned with Lintian tag severities?
- The severity chosen for these tags/checks is not justified by any of
our policies, neither the Debian policy,
Indeed. There's #726998 open to fix this.
not the best packaging practises
It is justified by MY best packaging practises. Isn't it enough? ;-P
- There is no technical nor social justification for this severity.
Making it simple: either you have an internet connection or you don't.
In the latter case there is no problem. If you have an internet
connection you either use a technical solution/ anonymizer to disable
any "tracking" services or you don't. In both cases you don't have a
problem, either you decided you accept the existance of zero-byte gifs,
cross-links, tracking services and stuffs or you already use a
technical solution to "disable" this. So making our package compliant
to this new privacy-policy doesn't add any value to our users.
I wholeheartedly disagree, but I don't feel this is the good place to
argue about it. Would you be so kind as to present your point of view in
#726998 instead?
- I simply morally disagree with removing donation requests
Sure. But nobody is asking you to remove donation requests. The
privacy-breach-donation description reads: “Please replace any scripts,
images, or other remote resources with non-remote resources. It is
preferable to replace them with text and links but local copies of the
remote resources are also acceptable as long as they don't also make
calls to remote services.”
I cannot argue with the position of the Debian project and IMHO neither
can you, so I would suggest a conservative choice for severity of these
tags as long as we don't have a common position of the project.
I agree that it was a mistake that these tags where added with “serious”
severity, and that “pedantic” would have been more appropriate
initially. But then, I have no doubts what will be the result of
#726998, so we might as well keep it as is, to avoid severity
serious→pedantic→serious ping-pongs.
--
Jakub Wilk
Reply to: