Re: Bug#54968: Lintian, archive maintenance and and policy
Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> I agree that undocumented(7) should be abolished, but only after the
> change to package acceptance which I propose. Then we can do away
> with all the nasty side-effects of undocumented(7) (manpages showing
> up in locate, dpkg -L, etc. when they are not present; sometimes
> dangling symlinks - who says we won't move it again; inconsistent
> behaviour between various packages).
Not to mention the all-too-often-false claim in the page itself that a
bug report *has* been filed.
Basically, I find undocumented(7) paradoxical. It's a blessed bug --
any package that uses it has a bug, but every acts as if it were a bug
fix. (Including lintian, which is probably something we should
change.)
Anyway, what I was really going to say was: since lintian errors do
*not* apparently block package acceptance, does that mean that you,
Ian, now support the proposal to do away with undocumented(7)?
I think having a formal second on the proposal (does anyone remember
the bug number off the top?) from Ian might do a lot to stop the
irrelevent and already answered objections that keep arising.
(p.s. Ian, I didn't cc this to you because I have the impression that
you've been following -policy lately. If I'm wrong and you didn't see
this, please let me know, and I'll forward you a copy.:-)
--
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.
Reply to: