On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 12:44:17PM -0500, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: > [1] I need to override because the error could only be *fixed* by > repackaging the .orig.tar.gz, which I don't want to do for so little a > thing, when the problem can be adequately worked around.
While I fully agree that the workaround (plus asking upstream to fix it) is the correct thing to do, I don't think you should use an override. It's nice to have warning-free packages, but that should be because they are in order, not because you know what's wrong and don't want to hear it. So IMO that warning should just be there until upstream fixes the source package. Overrides are for false positives: the check fails even though there's nothing wrong. (Often they also mean a bug report to lintian/linda is in order.) In this case there is something wrong, only the maintainer can't fix it. But that's no reason to suppress the warning. Then again, looking at the warning there's something wrong with the check as well. That is, assuming you did remove the files in the clean target, the hint about that suggests that they don't check what they want. So even without an override you may want to report a bug. :-) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
