Bug#743694: Downgrade most of privacy-breach* tags from severity: error to pedantic
Am Samstag, den 05.04.2014, 23:22 +0200 schrieb Jakub Wilk:
> 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?
Citing the Reject FAQ for Debian's NEW-Queue:
"Lintian errors and warnings, without a good reason to ignore them, can
get you a reject. Sometimes there are valid reasons, but then you should
either file a bug against lintian if it's generally wrong, or include an
override in your package, giving a reason in the changelog for it."
Nuff said?
> >- 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.
Thanks for the pointer. I'll put my opinion there and not here.
[..]
> >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.
A lintian error is a reason to delay the package upload and take action
on the package instead / aka fix the lintian error. The severity chosen
here is IMHO not justified by any reason. And even if #726998 leads to
an addition to the Debian policy or to the best packaging practices,
this might as well be a "SHOULD" or "CAN" rule (and JFTR: IMHO if we add
something like this to the policy, it should be a "SHOULD" rule and not
more). This would *maybe* justify a lintian warning. I see no reason for
severity: error here.
Regards, Daniel
Reply to: