Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > (moving to lintian-maint)
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> I tend to think that you're doing too much checks here. Having too >>> much in Build-Depends is not *that* bad. You'd better check only for >>> the contrary ie missing Build-Depends because they are used in the >>> clean rule... well IMO of course. >> This would be a good thing to send to lintian-maint rather than just to >> me. I didn't add the check in the first place; I just tried to fix all >> of the false positives in a check that was already in lintian before I >> started working on it. I agree with you that it's not completely clear >> it's worth it, although at this point there aren't many false positives >> left. > I have nothing to add, just wanted to share my initial comment with the > other maintainers as suggested by Russ. What would the other lintian maintainers think about downgrading the build-depends-without-arch-dep tag to info from warning? We are getting a *lot* of false positives with it, and while I'm quashing them as I see them, this is a style thing more than it's really a policy requirement. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
