On Sunday 03 May 2009 13:24:12 Luca Niccoli wrote: > 2009/5/3 George Danchev <[email protected]>: > > Nod. I'm in favour of removing any lintian assertions from m.d.o, since > > that might be misleading. > > Maybe write something like: > [Check the package with lintian --pedantic and explain the reason for > warnings and errors or state that is clean]
What the mentors's RFS form or the site in general should remind the sponsoree is: "did you check your package with lintian from sid?". That should be enough as a mere reminded. > In the RFS template? (Maybe written a bit better...) > This would remember the sponsoree to justify lintian warnings that he > thinks should not be fixed... What the mentors's web engine should avoid doing is: to check only the sponsoree's source package with a possibly outdated version of lintian and to suggest in the RFS form that the "package appears to be lintian clean", when it is not utterly visible what version of lintian was used to perform the check, not to mention the fact that binary packages are not checked, since they are not there. Such a stipulation is at least misleading to the mere sponsorees even if they can see their own lintian warnings locally, they might think they are not running lintian correctly when the mentors' web engine says the package appears to be lintian clean => a pure maze, go figure the site is running outdated lintian. Note, that "package appears to be lintian clean according to lintian x.y.z from stable" would still be a partial solution because the binary packages are still not checked. And, that "the source package appears to be lintian clean according to lintian x.y.z from stable" would be really useless ;-) -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
