On 21-Mar-2009, Rene Engelhard wrote: > No, if it's a bug at all - it's minor. Or even wishlist. Not every > bogus tag of lintian makes sense... I think that, if a Lintian warning makes no sense, it's best to report a bug against Lintian explaining why. > I do not agree with this reasioning at all. Backports are done by me > anyway directly out of the debian/rules from sid (LENNY_BACKPORT=y) > so there is no backport problem here. It would be great if you could make this case to the Lintian people. You might very well end up with a Lintian check that catches the problems it was intended to catch, while still passing in cases where there is no problem. > Thus I so far just ignored this lintian error. These build-deps are > perfectly fine. Reducing the number of Lintian tags reported (either by fixing them or by persuading the Lintian developers to change or remove the check) can help to find real problems easier. > (Applied anyway, this time even with bzr merge...) Great! I'm glad the repositories are now compatible :-) -- \ “Science shows that belief in God is not only obsolete. It is | `\ also incoherent.” —Victor J. Stenger, 2001 | _o__) | Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature