On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:02:05PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
Everybody should pipe his uploads through lintian. That's nothing
that should be in the upload tool, IMHO. A unixy tool does one job,
not two.
Counter example: everybody should pipe his .changes through
debchange. Still the check
On Tue, Nov 24 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:02:05PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
Everybody should pipe his uploads through lintian. That's nothing
that should be in the upload tool, IMHO. A unixy tool does one job,
not two.
Counter example: everybody should
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:02:05PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
Everybody should pipe his uploads through lintian. That's nothing
that should be in the upload tool,
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:06:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
we are turning on lintian based autorejects within the next few days.
This means that packages failing a defined set of lintian tags will no
longer be accepted into the archive, but get rejected immediately.
This should help to get
I've noticed that for DELAYED/XX uploads, the lintian rejects are
triggered not when the package hits DELAYED/XX, but rather when the
package eventually hits the archive. The annoyance of this is that the
uploader losts focus on the specific fix.
Any chance/plan to fix this so that lintian
On 2009-11-23, Joerg Jaspert jo...@debian.org wrote:
So for that, yes, you want to think about the dput solution. Which would
have the nice added benefit to actually save people form uploading and
wasting bandwidth and time.
Everybody should pipe his uploads through lintian. That's nothing
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
I've put together a hand-rolled test package that demonstrates this:
http://people.debian.org/~vorlon/test-package_1_all.deb
lintian reports the 'wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid' error for this
package, but you'll see that unpacking it results in a
Please do. For now, and I think until squeeze or this tag no longer
visible on lintian.d.o (ie no package affected), whatever comes first,
this tag is in nonfatal.
I think you shall find that most already have bugs filed.
Yes, and I really like that I do not have to do this myself,
On Wed, Nov 04 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 11:29:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Do you understand why people are getting annoyed ?
They have a lot of bloody gall to be annoyed thatpeople file
bugs about serious policy violations that they have signed
On Wed, Nov 04 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Please do. For now, and I think until squeeze or this tag no longer
visible on lintian.d.o (ie no package affected), whatever comes first,
this tag is in nonfatal.
I think you shall find that most already have bugs filed.
Yes, and I really
On Wed, Nov 04 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'm not complaining about you filing bugs on *my* packages. I'm
complaining about a mass bug filing on *any* packages, using standards
that have not previously been approved by the project, because *doing
so skews priorities for the project as a
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:15:57AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
Policy 9.2 does /not/ prohibit shipping files with owners outside these
ranges; it prohibits relying on user or group IDs outside these ranges being
static, but there doesn't appear
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:15:57AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
E: ftp-master: section-is-dh_make-template
Sections in source packages have minimal impact; the section that matters is
the one specified in the archive override. There's no reason that the
invalid default
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
On 11921 March 1977, Steve Langasek wrote:
E: ftp-master: debian-rules-is-symlink
Not a requirement that's derived from Policy at all. If you think this is
important to require for all packages due to the side effect on lintian's
ability to do further checking, please
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 01:15:57AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
Policy 9.2 does /not/ prohibit shipping files with owners outside these
ranges; it prohibits relying on user or group IDs outside these ranges
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:28:01AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
I reproduce here the one from Brian May, which I think is very
relevant and was asked in many different ways, and always ignored:
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20091102084201.ga15...@microcomaustralia.com.au
I
On Tue, Nov 03 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I don't think it is that simple. nitpickFor once, we need to refine
some of our guidelines (that's the easy part). Devref §5.11.1 authorizes
to upload only changes that fix RC bugs older than X days, so if lintian
is complaining about issues not
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:30:04AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The ideal solution would be to have dak know the previous state and do
not accept _regressions_ wrt the previous set of fatal upload errors
(according to the proposed wording). I'm not sure it is worth though,
I
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:28:01AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 05:00:53PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Surely the answer to that question is obvious: fix the bugs Lintian is
finding that prevent upload. They're the equivalent of RC bugs (not
* Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org [091103 17:32]:
For packages that are now in the archive with lintian errors that would
have prevented them to be uploaded, you're right. However, as a corner
case, you can imagine a new lintian check added 10 years from now, and
that check be used to
I don't think it's appropriate to make, for instance, dir-or-file-in-var-www
instantly fatal without following the usual mass-bug-filing procedure. If
you'd like mass bugs to be filed based on these lintian tags but don't have
time, let me know if I can help (I can't promise to deal with all
Le Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 01:01:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
when we do add such a lintian check to the blacklist, we also file serious
bugs against those packages in the archive; and aggressively work to either
fix the packages, or remove them from the archive.
It is very unclear
On Tue, Nov 03 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:30:04AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
The ideal solution would be to have dak know the previous state and do
not accept _regressions_ wrt the previous set of fatal upload errors
(according to the proposed wording).
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 09:06:25PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
If you do an NMU you hopefully will look at the lintian output of your
upload. With old or hardly maintained packages that will be complicated
because you have to look at the lintian messages for the unmodified
packages and for
On Tue, Nov 03 2009, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I don't think it's appropriate to make, for instance,
dir-or-file-in-var-www instantly fatal without following the usual
mass-bug-filing procedure. If you'd like mass bugs to be filed based
on these lintian tags but don't have time, let me know if I
On Tue, Nov 03 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 01:01:02PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
when we do add such a lintian check to the blacklist, we also file serious
bugs against those packages in the archive; and aggressively work to either
fix the packages, or
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 11:29:53PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Do you understand why people are getting annoyed ?
They have a lot of bloody gall to be annoyed thatpeople file
bugs about serious policy violations that they have signed up to
follow, and neglected in their
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
My only concern is that the ftp archive checks not be used to force changes
in Policy.
If the set of tags being drawn from is limited to those that are recognized
as violations of Policy must requirements, then I have no opinion on who
should
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 04:13:48PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 03:31:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
So, I revamp a proposal I made in a corner of this thread:
Let the QA team decide upon the non overridable lintian errors.
My only concern is that the ftp
On 01/11/09 at 15:31 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[ Adding -qa to Cc ]
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:22:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
For future handling: If we are adding tags to the list that will hit
more than a few packages we will send a notice to the d-d-a list.
I don't
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:22:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
I'd recommend that others do likewise, to get an appropriately large set of
eyeballs on this change.
Question:
(apologies if this has already been addressed and I missed it)
I want to perform a NMU upload on a package, say to fix
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'm fine with letting ftpmasters take that decision. However, they
should consult the project before adding new tags (mail to -devel: We
are thinking of adding those new tags to our list, comments? instead of
a mail to -devel saying We just blocked the following tags),
Russ Allbery wrote:
Luk Claes l...@debian.org writes:
As before Manoj seems to interpret things and word things so they fit
the way he can use them at the moment he needs them. As long as that
continues I'm not going to even try to get the Debian Policy and RC bug
policy consistent and the
On Mon Nov 02 11:40, Luk Claes wrote:
For the actual matter at hand I think it's very wrong to do a MBF
without going through d-devel for several reasons:
snip reasons
Otoh, this is a slightly special case, since they are things which are
causing the package to become non-uploadable. In this
Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Nov 02 11:40, Luk Claes wrote:
For the actual matter at hand I think it's very wrong to do a MBF
without going through d-devel for several reasons:
snip reasons
Otoh, this is a slightly special case, since they are things which are
causing the package to
On Mon, Nov 02 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
Exactly, I have only a limited amount of time and don't want to spend it
on demotivating discussions with Manoj about why he uses two standards.
Though just ignoring these is also of no help, so in general I just
point out when he does it (probably not
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org writes:
I was splitting the issues in two sub-issues actually: (1) being sure
that lintian E: messages are only those coming from violated must
requirements, (2) deciding which among them are upload blockers.
I confess I was pretty much assuming that
Luk Claes l...@debian.org writes:
Exactly, I have only a limited amount of time and don't want to spend it
on demotivating discussions with Manoj about why he uses two standards.
I really think the best solution to this is to stop having demotivating
discussions with Manoj, particularly in
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
By my interpretation, I don't think that the TC has any authority
here since the ftp-masters are DPL delegates and not individual
maintainers.
The intersection of §5.1.1 (DPL delegation) and §6.1.1 (CTTE decides
technical policy) is kind of
On 02/11/09 at 12:10 +0200, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'm fine with letting ftpmasters take that decision. However, they
should consult the project before adding new tags (mail to -devel: We
are thinking of adding those new tags to our list, comments? instead of
a mail
Le Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 08:49:40AM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I'm not seeing where he's doing any significant harm
By killing the discusssion with a flood of emails. Here are the top posters for
this month in this thread:
3 Charles Plessy (+1 with this one)
3 Michael Banck
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
In addition, some important questions are left unanswered. I reproduce
here the one from Brian May, which I think is very relevant and was
asked in many different ways, and always ignored:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
In addition, some important questions are left unanswered. I reproduce
here the one from Brian May, which I think is very relevant and was
asked in many different ways, and always ignored:
John H. Robinson, IV jaq...@debian.org writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Surely the answer to that question is obvious: fix the bugs Lintian is
finding that prevent upload. They're the equivalent of RC bugs (not
precisely the same, but similar), which if you're already doing an NMU
are certainly
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:06:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The second category is named error and the tags listed can not be
overridden. Those are tags corresponding to packaging errors serious
enough to mark a package unfit for the archive and should never happen.
In fact, most of the
getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
make the package too buggy to be in Debian
Wow, time goes so fast, it is already the season for attempting to delay the
release!
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
* Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org [091101 11:23]:
Some problems I find with this list:
I think some of those complaints show a general disagreement about
what aims Debian has. Are we here to gain for quality or is allowing
the maximum amount of (free) software the primary goal?
E: ftp-master:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 12:05:39PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org [091101 11:23]:
Some problems I find with this list:
I think some of those complaints show a general disagreement about
what aims Debian has. Are we here to gain for quality or is allowing
Hi Manoj,
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:03:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
make the package too buggy to be in Debian
Please respect the tradition and discuss mass-filing of bugs on
debian-devel.
thanks,
Michael
--
Michael Banck wrote:
Hi Manoj,
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:03:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
make the package too buggy to be in Debian
Please respect the tradition and discuss mass-filing of bugs on
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:06:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The second category is named error and the tags listed can not be
overridden. Those are tags corresponding to packaging errors serious
enough to mark a package unfit for the archive and should never happen.
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:17:43AM +, Chris Lamb wrote:
Can you please consider changing the above naming?
FWIW the actual reject messages are very clear and do not use these
terms (which I've changed in Git anyway, pending merge). Thanks.
Thanks a lot for your change!
BTW, in spite of
[ Adding -qa to Cc ]
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:22:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
For future handling: If we are adding tags to the list that will hit
more than a few packages we will send a notice to the d-d-a list.
I don't think it's appropriate for the ftp team to add any other
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Michael Banck wrote:
Hi Manoj,
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:03:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
make the package too buggy to be in Debian
Please respect the tradition and discuss mass-filing of
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
Michael Banck wrote:
Hi Manoj,
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 01:03:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
make the package too buggy to be in Debian
Please respect the tradition and
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
make the package too buggy to be in Debian
Wow, time goes so fast, it is already the season for attempting to delay the
release!
People ignoring bugs wilfully are
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org (01/11/2009):
This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
after being checked individually, and was filed one by one,
manually. This was not a massive script which could have massive
numbers of false positives, and thus these
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org (01/11/2009):
This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
after being checked individually, and was filed one by one,
manually. This was not a massive script which could have massive
numbers of false
Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org (01/11/2009):
Then you probably should read Policy 7.1.1. Individual checks or
non-automation doesn't make it less massive.
Make it DevRef (thanks, Kumar).
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org (01/11/2009):
This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
after being checked individually, and was filed one by one,
manually. This was not a massive script which could have massive
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org (01/11/2009):
This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
after being checked individually, and was filed one by one,
manually. This was not a massive script which
Hi Manoj,
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 10:12:07AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org (01/11/2009):
This was not a mass filing as I reaed it. Each bug was filed
after being checked individually, and was
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Some problems I find with this list:
E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
N:
N: The user or group ID of the owner of the file is invalid. The owner
N: user and group IDs must be in the set of globally allocated IDs,
N: because other IDs
Luk Claes l...@debian.org writes:
As before Manoj seems to interpret things and word things so they fit
the way he can use them at the moment he needs them. As long as that
continues I'm not going to even try to get the Debian Policy and RC bug
policy consistent and the Debian Policy will
Luk Claes l...@debian.org writes:
As before Manoj seems to interpret things and word things so they fit
the way he can use them at the moment he needs them.
Even if that were true, it's foolish to think this is a trait specific
to one person. Everyone does this to some degree, and smearing one
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:34:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Luk Claes l...@debian.org writes:
As before Manoj seems to interpret things and word things so they fit
the way he can use them at the moment he needs them. As long as that
continues I'm not going to even try to get the Debian
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:34:37PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
On behalf of the other four Policy maintainers who aren't Manoj and who
so far as I know you don't have personal conflicts with, let me just
say gee, thanks. This is how we can ensure that
Hi,
On Sonntag, 1. November 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think it's a very positive step forward for the archive as a
whole to start doing auto-rejects for some major Lintian tags,
I only agree partially. IMO auto-rejects for _introducing_ certain lintian
tags (in sid/exp) is right as it is
Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:38:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
People ignoring bugs wilfully are possibly to blame, don't you think?
So blame them. But as for reporting a large number of RC bugs, it has been
shown in the previous release cycles that putting this in the frame of
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 01:31:08PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
Some problems I find with this list:
E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
Policy 9.2 does /not/ prohibit shipping files with owners outside these
ranges; it prohibits relying on
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:31:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
All Manoj is doing is filing bugs. Anyone can do that. I don't see any
reason why that would make anything harder in the long run.
I have seen him assert in a bug on one package that I'm subscribed to that
the package has been
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:50:19AM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
And yet, some FHS violations just seem to be treated as important (#523920),
while others are more than serious (not being able to upload with some FHS
violations, which IMO have less consequences...)
Bug #523920 is not an FHS
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:38:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Wow, time goes so fast, it is already the season for attempting to delay the
release!
People ignoring bugs wilfully are possibly to blame, don't you think?
And that justifies forcing these people to move your pet
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 03:31:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:22:28AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
For future handling: If we are adding tags to the list that will hit
more than a few packages we will send a notice to the d-d-a list.
I don't think it's
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:31:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
All Manoj is doing is filing bugs. Anyone can do that. I don't see any
reason why that would make anything harder in the long run.
I have seen him assert in a bug on one package that I'm
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 03:09:56PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
E: ftp-master: wrong-file-owner-uid-or-gid
N:
N: The user or group ID of the owner of the file is invalid. The owner
N: user and group IDs must be in the set of globally allocated IDs,
N: because other IDs are dynamically
On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 15:55 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
Seems to me like there's no point in asking the ftpmasters to come
up with
the source package section name because the package author didn't
notice
and set one before the first upload. Although I do agree that if
we're
going to
Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 04:17:15PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I'm not unsympathetic, but I personally don't mind the ftp team being
somewhat more proactive than that. A lot of the bugs that they've marked
as rejects are pretty obvious and easy-to-fix bugs, and I'm not sure why
the
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:31:19PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
All Manoj is doing is filing bugs. Anyone can do that. I don't see any
reason why that would make anything harder in the long run.
I have seen him assert in a bug on one package that
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 12:05:39PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
* Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org [091101 11:23]:
Some problems I find with this list:
I think some of those complaints show a general disagreement about
what aims Debian has. Are we here to gain for quality or is allowing
themselves but trusted lintian and its maintainers.
Possibly also by filling bugs to lintian or policy as appropriate.
I'd also prefer it if the QA team was involved somehow in all these,
since, well, this is about “quality assurance”, isn't it?
While I also agree in principle with lintian-based
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:38:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
People ignoring bugs wilfully are possibly to blame, don't you think?
So blame them. But as for reporting a large number of RC bugs, it has
If there are a large
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:38:56AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Wow, time goes so fast, it is already the season for attempting to delay
the
release!
People ignoring bugs wilfully are possibly to blame, don't you think?
And that
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 07:54:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Well, just like the release team apparently has the right to
arbitrarily overrule policy and decide when serious bugs are not
serious -- as opposed to not RC -- yup.
I do think that the ftp team decides what
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 10:12:11PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
(N.B.: this check would fail even in the case of a package with a
pre-existing section override in the archive. What's the sense of
that?
Let the maintainer get the nag mail after the fact telling them to
reconcile
the
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
And that justifies forcing these people to move your pet cosmetic
issues to the top of their todo list?
Not my pet cosmetic issue. This is a decision taken by folks
in charge of the archive
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 04:17:15PM -0800, Russ Allbery a écrit :
I'm not unsympathetic, but I personally don't mind the ftp team being
somewhat more proactive than that. A lot of the bugs that they've
marked as rejects are pretty obvious and
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 07:54:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Well, just like the release team apparently has the right to
arbitrarily overrule policy and decide when serious bugs are not
serious -- as opposed to not RC -- yup.
that
Lintian is doing and the sort of checks that the QA team has been working
on except at a very high level. But I'd absolutely love to have them
involved if they're interested.
While I also agree in principle with lintian-based autorejects and
respect the work that has been done for this, I
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, Nov 01 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
And that justifies forcing these people to move your pet cosmetic
issues to the top of their todo list?
Not my pet cosmetic issue. This is a decision
Manoj Srivastava sriva...@debian.org writes:
who spent over 30 hours checking for and filing 219 bugs against packages
which violate policy, and is getting somewhat irritated by all the
kvetching
Thank you for doing this. I've looked at doing it from time to time based
on Lintian results
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 07:29:23PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Also, note that the ftp team are at least project delegates, whereas the
Lintian maintainers are just package maintainers. If we have a
governance problem with the ftp team making this decision, it would be
even worse if the
Hi,
On Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2009, Simon McVittie wrote:
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 at 15:06:07 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
The second category is named error and the tags listed can not be
overridden.
I don't think it's appropriate to make, for instance,
dir-or-file-in-var-www instantly fatal
On Sat, Oct 31 2009, Holger Levsen wrote:
Some examples of tags where I do not consider this reasonable until bugs
have been filed:
- statically-linked-binary
- mknod-in-maintainer-script
- debian-rules-not-a-makefile
- dir-or-file-in-var-www
Again, +1.
Well, at
In article 87hbtfxwyz@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com you wrote:
getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
make the package too buggy to be in Debian
I think packages which had no bug reports before are clearly not too buggy
to be in Debian.
Gruss
Bernd
--
Bernd Eckenfels bernd...@eckenfels.net writes:
you wrote:
getting around to filing bugs on policy MUST violations and others that
make the package too buggy to be in Debian
I think packages which had no bug reports before are clearly not too
buggy to be in Debian.
No bug reports could just
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Can you please consider changing the above naming?
FWIW the actual reject messages are very clear and do not use these
terms (which I've changed in Git anyway, pending merge). Thanks.
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'`
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 03:06:07PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
As there are certain lintian tags that should only appear in very rare
cases we have created two categories. The first is named warning, tags
snip
The second category is named error and the tags listed can not be
overridden. Those
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 05:51:12PM -0700, Ryan Niebur wrote:
I prefer Author(s). Less text to update when a new author is
added. It does no harm and affects nothing in the end result. I'm
curious as to why you think Author(s) is a bad thing?
It's the sort of thing you get in automatically
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 09:37:53AM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 07:42:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Please note that the intention of the Lintian tag is not to complain
about people using Author(s), but to catch people who have used
dh-make and then never completed
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
