Re: Lintian clean? (was: Re: RFS: mpview)
On Sunday 03 May 2009 13:24:12 Luca Niccoli wrote:
> 2009/5/3 George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net>:
> > Nod. I'm in favour of removing any lintian assertions from m.d.o, since
> > that might be misleading.
>
> Maybe write something like:
> [Check the package with lintian --pedantic and explain the reason for
> warnings and errors or state that is clean]
What the mentors's RFS form or the site in general should remind the sponsoree
is: "did you check your package with lintian from sid?". That should be enough
as a mere reminded.
> In the RFS template? (Maybe written a bit better...)
> This would remember the sponsoree to justify lintian warnings that he
> thinks should not be fixed...
What the mentors's web engine should avoid doing is: to check only the
sponsoree's source package with a possibly outdated version of lintian and to
suggest in the RFS form that the "package appears to be lintian clean", when
it is not utterly visible what version of lintian was used to perform the
check, not to mention the fact that binary packages are not checked, since
they are not there. Such a stipulation is at least misleading to the mere
sponsorees even if they can see their own lintian warnings locally, they might
think they are not running lintian correctly when the mentors' web engine says
the package appears to be lintian clean => a pure maze, go figure the site is
running outdated lintian.
Note, that "package appears to be lintian clean according to lintian x.y.z
from stable" would still be a partial solution because the binary packages are
still not checked. And, that "the source package appears to be lintian clean
according to lintian x.y.z from stable" would be really useless ;-)
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: