Re: packages with really old standards version
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:27:40PM -0800, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> 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.
Sure, but lacking /usr/share/doc is, aiui, a non-RC issue as it stands
(since there seems to be some sort of deadlock in working out what to do
about it)...
> 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.
Sure, getting looked at is fine. That's different from filing RC bugs,
though.
> > 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
Currently, aiui, lintian uses E: for problems that it's sure are mistakes,
and W: for problems that it's only guessing are mistakes. I think that
division is still useful.
katie or testing could legitimately automatically reject packages with
E! lintian errors, but not E- or W!, eg.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Reply to: