On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:12:57AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2009-07-19, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past by
willingfully upload packages with overriden lintian errors?
Damaged the project... no. Caused a
On 2009-07-23, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:12:57AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2009-07-19, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past
by
willingfully upload packages with
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:15:56PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
There are a great many Debian changelog messages along the lines of “made
change foo to keep Lintian happy” as though that were the only readon why
such a change would be beneficial. Apart from being bloody useless, that
kind of
On 2009-07-19, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past by
willingfully upload packages with overriden lintian errors?
Damaged the project... no. Caused a RC bug to be overlooked... yes.
I recently encountered a package
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
Damaged the project... no. Caused a RC bug to be overlooked... yes.
I recently encountered a package where the library's binary package
was not named after the SONAME. This caused a lintian error which was...
overridden. And it broke
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past by
willingfully upload packages with overriden lintian errors?
We sure have a few people that would blindly add overrides rather than
fixing the actual cause of the lintian
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 09:08:50AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
And today, the NEW queue managed by four persons dedicating 5-10
hours per week to the Debian archive contains 265 packages, some of
them waiting for one month or more. I disagree with their decision
to self-appoint themselves
Julien BLACHE jbla...@debian.org writes:
We sure have a few people that would blindly add overrides rather than
fixing the actual cause of the lintian warning/error. No doubt about
that.
This might be a symptom of the wider problem, that people see Lintian
not as a series of warning lights
On Sun, Jul 19 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
There are a great many Debian changelog messages along the lines of
“made change foo to keep Lintian happy” as though that were the only
readon why such a change would be beneficial. Apart from being bloody
useless, that kind of changelog message
Le Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:44:00AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
While I can understand your frustration, your argument looks flawed to
me. The measure of refusing _automatically_ uploads being affected by
(certain) lintian errors can not be classified as a new duty,
precisely because
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Hi,
Automatic rejection of packages with errors not justified by overrides is of
And what do you do with unjustified overrides?
Or can I just override every lintian test and upload my totally broken
package?
JB.
--
Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux
On 11815 March 1977, Julien BLACHE wrote:
Automatic rejection of packages with errors not justified by overrides is of
And what do you do with unjustified overrides?
Or can I just override every lintian test and upload my totally broken
package?
The way we currently think about it there will
Le Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:55:30AM +0200, Julien BLACHE a écrit :
Or can I just override every lintian test and upload my totally broken
package?
Sure you can, yet you never did. Why?
Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past by
willingfully upload packages
Le Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:44:54AM +0200, Luk Claes a écrit :
AFAIK the FTP Team is working on a system to prevent uploads which have
lintian errors. The whole category of lintian errors has already been
assessed and possible overrides are planned to arrive in the NEW queue
at least
14 matches
Mail list logo
