Re: RFS: ampache (updated package)
On Tue, Oct 20 2009, George Danchev wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 20 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Jan Hauke Rahm <jhr@debian.org> wrote:
>> >> In future check your packages with 'lintian -IE --pedantic *.changes' to
>> >> catch minor issues. But the package looks good! :)
>> >
>> > Personally, I use this as it catches more things and gives more detail:
>> >
>> > lintian --info --display-info --display-experimental --pedantic
>> > --show-overrides --checksums --color
>>
>> I find that experimental and pedantic add far too much
>> irrelevant chatter, and that it tends to mask the problems one should
>> actually fix.
>
> Then split'em up and use on demand. For instance, use one shell
> alias for 'must fix these', when done use another one for 'pedantic'
> mode, if you like to, which should be enough to demask lintian
> reports.
>
> I think that experimenting with experimental/pedantic and
> eventually report results to BTS could help lintian developers to
> evaluate some information in advance about future infiltration and
> impact of these experimental checks, how useful, robust, or eventually
> boring they are, so they tweak the development heading according to
> the 'wind conditions'.
If you want to help improve lintian, sure. If you have the
experience and the patience, that is great. But suggesting it to a
bunch of novices trying to learn how to create packages might notbe the
best advice -- the experimental stuff is not something that is
necessarily things that ought to be fixed in the first place, and the
-I stuff is debatable. If you are learning how to package stuff,
concentrate on things you _do_ need to fix. Move on to helping fix
lintian once you are comfortable with packaging, and have developed
some judgment about where lintian ought to be heading.
manoj
--
The more control, the more that requires control.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: