Re: Lintian pickiness and packaging improvements
Rogério Brito <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Oct 29 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> That was actually most of the point of pedantic. Minor possible bugs
>> that aren't stylistic belong in info instead. That's why both of them
>> are suppressed by default.
> OK. Nice. Please keep them there. We can just treat them as pedantic and
> not recommend them by default.
> (I actually like them there).
Yeah, it's worth remembering that part of the history of pedantic was to
add a new classification for tags that I, as a Lintian maintainer, was not
willing to always fix even in my *own* packages. We had a lot of demand
in bug reports for adding some additional checks, often repeated requests
for the same checks, so I didn't want to drop them entirely, but I also
didn't want to bother people with them who weren't explicitly asking for
There are a few pedantic tags that I routinely ignore, usually because I
can't easily do anything about them (like no-upstream-changelog).
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>