Hi Holger, On 23/04/18 03:11, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 01:52:19AM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Fundamentally not a lintian warnings are created equal. Some have solid >> foundation in Debian project consensus and policy. Others are nothing >> more than the opinions of the lintian maintainers. This is one of the >> latter. > > you make it sound like the lintian maintainers are a bunch of lunatics, > but according to src:piuparts/debian/copyright, that's us, the piuparts > maintainers. the lintian maintainers (and uploaders) are a bunch of > (ex- and current) people from the release team, ftp team, policy editors > and others.
I can understand that the above is one reading of Scott's mail, but I personally didn't take anything super negatively w.r.t. "nothing more than the opinions of the lintian maintainers". But again, in the context of my mail, I was (quite verbosely) outlining that Lintian's findings may sometimes be, on their own, sufficient justifications for a REJECT, and sometimes not. Even a Lintian warning may still result in a REJECT if it was clear it was 100% apt, and represents something we don't want in the archive. > and, afaik, they react to bug reports. maybe for now this python2 warning > should be downgraded to 'info'? what would be the best way to tell them I agree, people who feel strongly this issue is misclassified could best instigate action by taking this discussion to a bug (perhaps spilling over to debian-devel if it is in fact of interest to the wider project for discussion). Cheers, Luke W Faraone
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
