Niels Thykier wrote: > On 2011-02-20 07:16, Raphael Geissert wrote: >> We expect auto rejections to be disabled for the affected, non-fatal, >> tags for a while to give a grace period of time for this transition. >> Lintian 2.4.0, currently in experimental, has a list of tags we expect to >> be > ^^^^^ > 2.5.0?
Oops, thanks. > Did we want to upload 2.5.0 to experimental or a 2.5.0 pre-release? I > seem to recall Russ wanted to do it as a pre-release/release candidate, > but I cannot find any references to it. It may be prudent in the case > that we need to break another override (e.g. we missed a tag that still > reports files with wrong prefix) We can do that, yes. I'm okay either way. > Maybe we should urge people to review and give feedback on the accuracy > and severity of some of the new tags. Possibly "selling" a bit on what > kind of tags we have added in a short "high level" manner (e.g. Python > Policy checks, Java Dependency checks, etc.). What about: 8<--->8 Thanks to Niels Thykier joining the team, Lintian 2.5.0 features a number of new checks and many bug fixes, including checks specific to Java and Python packages. Lintian 2.5.0 closed 51 bug reports. 8<--->8 > Finally, did we want to drop all the "versioned depends" from tags, if > the version is satisfied in Squeeze? If so, perhaps we should drop the > "missing dh depends for override targets", plus all the dh_* commands > listed in the "%versions" hash in checks/debhelper. (Re: #612137) Not sure. I dropped those that would cause a soft rejection. Cheers, -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
