Hi Dne Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:57:05 +0200 Lars Volker <lv@lekv.de> napsal(a): > thank you for your replies. I'd like to comment on some of the questions > raised. First let me note, that I see two basic kinds of objections: > > - Objections related to the packages themselves: > Those mainly arise from the fact, that Peter had invested *a lot* of > work into the packaging process, some of which I might not have > perfectly understood from the beginning. Thus for example I removed the > watch file - not knowing, that lintian will complain in --pedantic mode. > Also I acknowledged Peter's work, when I ignored most of the lintian > warnings originating from his packages. "If they were included before" - > so I thought - "they can't be that important". Partially I still believe > that if they weren't a big show stopper before, they shouldn't be now. > However I intend to fix them over the time of continuous maintenance. Well the thing is that lot of checks (eg. embedded libraries) are quite new to lintian and because of this it did not complain on the package in the past. Right now much higher attention is given to this check mostly because of security reasons. Also checks for debian/copyright are much stricter these days than it used to be in past, so for any new package (what egroupware in fact is), you need to pay lot of attention when collecting this data. -- Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature