On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 05:47:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Why false positives? I mean, I see no reason to ship files that only > > make sense when developing under a Windows system even under > > usr/share/doc; some files are even generated by Visual Studio which have > > a big fat "DO NOT EDIT" warning which I'm not even sure if they can even > > be distributed. > > In the abstract, I agree with you. (I'm fairly sure those files are fine > to distribute, though; they're marked that way because they're > automatically generated, but lots of free software projects that support > Windows builds distribute them.) In the concrete, I'm concerned that it's > too much of a nitpick. I know I bang this drum a lot, but Lintian becomes > useless if people won't run it and pay attention to what it says, so I > don't want to issue tags that people feel are just meaningless noise.
And judging the feedback I got during Debconf it's not like we are far away from that, disasters like the copyright-line-too-long tag can quickly damage our reputation (not that I think that this is justified, and it might be only a vocal minority as often, but we should be careful anyway). > I'm not sure where this one falls. If you want to support Windows builds, > those files *could* be useful as part of an example of how to do that. > It's a bit of a stretch, but I can see it. Hmm, I don't actually think that this is a stretch. Crippling examples just for the sake of not including some files not needed on Debian sounds just wrong to me. If they are non-free, that's of course another matter, but then the check should be against the source package. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
