On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:28:45PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > 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.
Yeah, makes sense to me. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
