On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 06:49:37AM +0000, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 02:19:21PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes: > > > > > or we could disallow the override of >= E: errors in lintian, and make > > > lintian reboot your computer, fill your gpg with /dev/random bits, and > > > install windows over your Debian if you override such errors. > > > > I'd love it if lintian were at a point where it would make sense to do > > that, but as a lintian maintainer, I'm afraid that it's not. Not all > > errors are created equal, and some of them should legitimately be > > overridable. > > > > We've talked for quite a while about having finer-grained control over > > lintian messages than the current three-tier system, in part to allow > > something like this (automatic dak rejection on certain lintian errors, > > for instance), but I'm way short on time. :/ > > > > For example, to take the lintian error that started this thread, there are > > some arch: all packages in the archive with architecture-specific objects > > that at least on a cursory glance I couldn't declare wrong. They're > > development packages for cross-compilation and the arch-specific objects > > are libraries for the target. That seems like a legitimate case for a > > lintian override to me. > > Also, BIOSes for emulators are candidates for such an override. I know, but maybe (but that's sad if we need to do that) we should have overrides validated by the QA people … *sigh*. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpXg5xCSPTGm.pgp
Description: PGP signature