[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#167886: marked as done (tux-aqfh-data: should replace older versions of tux-aqfh )

Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> writes:

> On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 05:33:18AM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> >  tux-aqfh (1.0.14-2) unstable; urgency=low
> >  .
> >    * QA upload.
> >    * Make tux-aqfh-data replace tux-aqfh (<< 1.0.14-1) to avoid conflicts
> >      on upgrade.  Closes: #167886.
> >    * Remove undocumented(7) symlink for tux_aqfh(6).  Its lack has been
> >      reported as #171283; add Lintian override.
> >    * Conforms to Standards version 3.5.8.
> Why the Lintian override?

I was under the impression packages with Lintian errors are a big no-no.
Overriding link-to-undocumented-manpage was acceptable:

  W: tux-aqfh: link-to-undocumented-manpage usr/share/man/man6/tux_aqfh.6.gz
  N:   Symbolic links to the undocumented(7) manual page may be provided only
  N:   when a bug has been filed that no manual page is available. If you
  N:   like, you may report the bug yourself, and add an override for this
  N:   warning in your package.

If we override binary-without-manpage for reported bugs, it'll be easy
to spot unreported ones.

> If there's no man page, the error should stay there without being
> overridden so that it appears on summaries like
> http://qa.debian.org/man-pages.html.

How did it work in the undocumented(7) days then?



Reply to: