Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 11223 March 1977, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
>> I read that as "it's ok if you have a good reason". Therefore, I think >> a lintian warning would be more appropriate than an error. Attached >> patch implements this change. Please consider applying it. > That seems to be a good case for an lintian override in your package > then, leaving the check at E:?! In the absence of more granular metadata, I've been downgrading Policy "should" to a warning from an error when people complain about them. (It really should be something like source: policy, certainty: high, severity: should with an overridable default mapping to I/W/E, so that people can then classify on whatever combination of metadata that they need, but we're not there yet.) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
