no lintian warning on undocumented(7) (was Re: Custom undocumented(7)s...)

[Chris Waters <xtifr@dsp.net>]

Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes:

> Seth R Arnold wrote:
> > On one of our web servers could be a list of binaries in the traditional
> > PATH without manpages. People could sign up for working on a manpage for a
> > binary. (Perhaps `executable' is the correct phrase? :)

> Such a list has existed for a long time, see the lintain report pages.

But lintian doesn't report packages which use undocumented(7).  The
308 packages (853 actual incidents) reported as binary-without-manpage
are those which have *nothing at all*.  I know of no easy way to get a
list of all binaries using undocumented(7).

I recently filed bug #55081 against lintian, saying that it should *at
least* issue a warning about the use of undocumented(7), but Gecko
didn't like the idea.  After Gecko closed it, though, I note that
Torsten added a comment a comment specifically about this point: that
it's harder to find man pages to work on with no lintian warning.

It's a bug report against lintian, not policy, but maybe it's
something we should discuss and decide on this group anyway: should
lintian report a warning for the use of undocumented(7)?

(I note from rereading that Gecko seemed to think I was trying to
force a policy change -- in actuality, while I'd like to see policy
change, I'd like to see the lintian warning in any case.)

Anyway, if enough people on this list like the idea, maybe we can
persuade Gecko to reconsider.  And if not, then not.  *shrug*  :)
-- 
Chris Waters   xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
      or    xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr     | this .signature file.