On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:59:49PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > > So you suggest that I do not repack source and do not add overrides ? > > > > http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html > > about lintian in the serious violations-part > > "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" > > I don't know how communication with the ftp-masters works these days; > ideally they would read through files in the debian dir (what about > README.ftp-masters :-)...) and find your note about the reasoning. I > would not just add a lintian overrides without having the package > double-checked by a person who really understands the issues and > verifies that the files will really be out of effect. I am confused about the purpose of lintian overrides. Can someone explain it to me, please? I thought an override would be in order when lintian complains, but there isn't really a bug. In other words, in case of a false positive. A lintian bug report may be in order as well, as the reject-faq says. In this case, the warning is not wrong at all. It is a bug, and it needs to be fixed. In this case, it can only be fixed upstream (I'm assuming here that this is not enough reason to repackage the tarball). Upstream has also agreed to fix it in the next release. So I thought that a lintian warning/error should be seen as a bug in the package. An override would be a WONTFIX tag on it, effectively closing the bug. Obviously, this needs a rationale. Here, the bug will be fixed, but isn't yet. Forcefully closing it for that reason doesn't seem like a good idea. Better file a real bug report on the package and tag it PENDING (or not, depending on the details upstream). Am I misunderstanding what overrides are for? Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature