Julien BLACHE <jbla...@debian.org> writes: > We sure have a few people that would blindly add overrides rather than > fixing the actual cause of the lintian warning/error. No doubt about > that.
This might be a symptom of the wider problem, that people see Lintian not as a series of warning lights indicating probable problems with the package, but rather as “a deity to be appeased”, in the words of Al Viro <URL:http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/831034>. There are a great many Debian changelog messages along the lines of “made change foo to keep Lintian happy” as though that were the only readon why such a change would be beneficial. Apart from being bloody useless, that kind of changelog message strongly implies that the writer hasn't bothered to understand why Lintian was programmed to complain about the issue in the first place. I don't know what more can be done about this; heck, Lintian itself has an easily-accessed detailed explanation attached to every one of its tags that explains why fixing the issue that triggered that tag is of interest not to Lintian, but to the project at large. -- \ “It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival | `\ value.” —Arthur C. Clarke, 2000 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org