Re: packages with really old standards version
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 11:30:23AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> I'd encourage the lintian maintainer ( :) ) to automatically file "old
> standards version" bugs about such packages (of normal/minor/wishlist
> severity); and I'd definitely encourage the lintian maintainer to file
> serious bugs about automatically detect-able violations of any MUST
> directives in current policy (no matter what standards-version the
> packages claims to comply with).
>
I file any bugs I detect, once I get lintian running on the archive, old
packages beware (-:
A package of 2.x policy behaves in a way different than current packages.
They lack a /usr/share/doc, their manpages are not in share either. They
may violate other things. Point is, these packages will be a source of bugs.
All I am asking for is the package get looked at. I found one today that
had not been touched in 2 years. Ther eare many others, and they hide.
If nothing else a way to flag packages older than X months or Standards-Version
YY would be nice.
>
> Shaleh, I'm not sure I got around to filing a bug against lintian about this,
> but it'd be nice if lintian differentiated between MUST/SHOULD/MAY violations
> in its output. Something like:
>
> E!: non-FHS-directory
> E-: missing-manpage
> E?: standards-version-uses-4-digits-not-3
>
when I rewrite lintian (started yesterday) the lintian messages will match
policy:
Error (E:) -- violate a MUST
Warning (W:) -- violate a SHOULD
XXXXXXX (?:) -- a MAY is not followed
not sure what I am naming the MAY message. Messages that are not due to policy
violations will have their level set on the importance of the problem.
With this restructuring, a Developer who gets a third level may ignore the
message, ignore a Warning for a short time and know that E: means 'I should
read policy'.
Reply to: