Herbert Xu wrote: > Surely this kind of religious zeal should not be reflected in lintian.
I have no particular opinion about the use of csh for scripts, and I hope to stay out of the actual policy discussion. But since I'm the one who wrote the actual csh-considered-harmful check for lintian, I guess I should explain my position. (I believe it is shared by Christian Schwarz, but of course I cannot speak for him.) This check is not the first one I came across that I knew might be controversial. I decided to implement such checks anyway. There are two reasons for this: 1. Lintian was designed to check packages for policy compliance. If the policy is wrong, then it should be changed, and lintian will follow suit. Modifying lintian to ignore part of the policy manual is bad, because it leaves us with an inaccurate policy. (Either that or it leaves a controversial part of policy undiscussed, which is also bad in my opinion.) 2. I should not judge policy myself. I should leave that to the denizens of this list. (And on the other hand, I do not want to start a policy discussion about every tag that I think might be controversial. I'll leave that to the maintainers who actually controverse.) Thus, I do think that if there is religious zeal in the policy manual, it should be reflected in lintian. Note that I will be happy to add overrides for the warnings that lintian gives for your packages if you send the exact tags to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The whole idea of warnings is that the maintainer can determine that they are harmless and can override them. In the csh-considered-harmful case, an obvious reason would be that the upstream package comes with csh scripts and is not going to change. > I'm at a loss at explaining how it even made it to our policy. > Hence I propose it be both removoed from the policy and lintian. I'm going to stay out of that part of the discussion :) Richard Braakman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
