Bug#1105037: marked as pending in lintian

[Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org>]

On Thu, 22 May 2025 21:26:06 +0300 =?UTF-8?Q?Martin=2D=C3=89ric_Racine?= 
<martin-eric.racine@iki.fi> wrote:
> to 22.5.2025 klo 21.18 Louis-Philippe Véronneau (pollo@debian.org) kirjoitti:
> >
> > On 2025-05-22 1 h 02 p.m., Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > to 22.5.2025 klo 16.51 Louis-Philippe Véronneau (pollo@debian.org) kirjoitti:
> > >> Bug #1105037 in lintian reported by you has been fixed in the
> > >> Git repository and is awaiting an upload. You can see the commit
> > >> message below and you can check the diff of the fix at:
> > >>
> > >> https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/bff519e31ffab9dddb074357b8975f9b246b4605
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> Downgrade non-virtual-facility-in-initd-script to warning
> > >>
> > >> As pointed in the bug report, the tag says this SHOULD be done, not that
> > >> it MUST.
> > >>
> > >> Closes: #1105037
> > >
> > > Can you point to a Policy item that is phrased as SHOULD or SHOULD NOT for this?
> > >
> > > Martin-Éric
> > >
> >
> > I do not, but then again not all Lintian tags have to be backed by
> > Policy items. Some are also simply good practices that have been
> > recommended for a while.
> >
> > This tag has been around since 2009 (implemented in
> > d187e5b9bf8a319b757afc4d299835f41f18b5e5) and if you wish for us to
> > reconsider its existence, we would need other arguments than just not
> > being based on a Policy item.
>
> I don't question the tag's existence. I question a severity level that
> is not backed by Policy.
>
> Martin-Éric

I'm not sure I fully understand your email then?

The bug report said the "Error" level was too high and it should be 
"Warning" instead. I agreed and created a patch accordingly.

If you think that severity level isn't warranted, please tell me why.

--
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org
  ⠈⠳⣄