On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 02:19:41AM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 01:46:49AM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > IMHO, this should be an override, and the description is wrong, people > > should only complain to us if it's a generic false positive, not if it's > > some kind of special case... > > > > Comments? Quite some descriptions are wrong in this regard IMHO. > > I think the thought behind this is that _we_ should decide if it is > a override case. Otherwise people will just add an override file > for false-positives and do not report them to us even if they are > really bugs on our side.
This isn't prevented either way, the only way to really prevent that is to check the overrides ourselves. But indeed asking people to complain here, so we can tell them to add an override, can be useful. But then, I prefer that to be the case in _general_, if people disagree with a test, come here, and we'll see whether the test needs to be fixed, or it is a special case. Bold suggestion: what about getting the overrides-responsibility towards lintian, and not the packages... of course, for backwards compatibility and to cope with impatiant maintainers, the current way should keep working, only emitting a I: about getting lintian-maintainers to add the override to lintian... Noticing bad tests becomes easier then too. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
