Re: RFS: k9copy
Sven Mueller <debian@incase.de> writes:
> Well, I generally agree with you, which is why I said 'you might
> need...' - it depends on why the lintian error exists.
> In this particular case, it seems that
> - k9vamps is executable but undocumented upstream and probably only used
> internally ("used by k9copy"). If this is intended to be like this,
> the lintian warning is a kind of false positive.
Well, if it's *really* completely internal, I'd install it in /usr/lib
rather than on the user's path. And then, yes, in that case it doesn't
need a man page. :)
> So: If the behaviour lintian complains about (here: executable without
> manpage) is known _and_ intended, it would be right to add an override.
> If - on the other hand - the behaviour is known to be a bug (i.e. will
> be fixed in a later version), an override is one possible way to say "I
> know this is a bug, I didn't yet get around to actually fix it", but
> both you and me would prefer the lintian warning over the lintian
> override, because this way you will be reminded of the bug each time you
> run lintian (which should happen before any upload).
Right. And for this particular lintian error, it also means that if the
"missing man page" QA project gets resurrected, it will be easy for others
to find the packages that need assistance.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: