Russ Allbery wrote on 21/11/2005 18:15:
> Sven Mueller <debian@incase.de> writes:
>
>>Also, if it is not lintian clean, you might need to set suitable
>>overrides.
>
> If the reason for the lintian messages is an actual bug in the package
> (such as in this case, where there are missing man pages), I actually
> prefer to see the lintian messages stay rather than using overrides. A
> lintian override to me means that the lintian message is wrong in this
> particular case, not that it's a known bug.
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.
- k9play-cell might be a different case though, but the oposter wasn't
clear about this one.
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).
cu,
sven
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature