Re: packages with really old standards version
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 12:39:08PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
no, it tries to do this based on 2.x level MUST/SHOULD and the authors beliefs
of severity. Has nothing to do with the sureness of the test.
> katie or testing could legitimately automatically reject packages with
> E! lintian errors, but not E- or W!, eg.
>
lintian will never be able to return a sure judgement. Manoj's packages
confuse it thoroughly, but on hand inspection I am sure they follow policy.
Every message lintian outputs should be checked manually and by a re-read of
policy. It is trying to discern what a human meant. In the realm of coding,
people do all kinds of crazy things and lintian can only cope so well. Assume
every message is 'X-:'.
A Package with an E: should be marked for human inspection at best.
James Troup has stated that when I trust lintian he will consider hooking it
into dinstall. I think this is a good thing. It is my hope to have lintian
to a sane state by summer (July-ish). Wichert wants something in 3 months
for the FSG. Not sure if the code base will make that, but I will try.
Reply to: