Bug#460499: lintian: No need to warn about missing short-description LSB header in init.d scripts

2008-01-15 Thread Joerg Jaspert
On 11263 March 1977, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: >> Do you think we should drop it completely or just reduce it to info? > Reducing it to info is probably good. Keep it at warning and the situation will change over time and packages get that header. -- bye Joerg [GFDL] Well, Debian is not for n

Bug#460499: lintian: No need to warn about missing short-description LSB header in init.d scripts

2008-01-13 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
[Russ Allbery] > Do you think we should drop it completely or just reduce it to info? Reducing it to info is probably good. > I think having a description is rather nice and may help figure out > where an init script abandoned by some previous package came from > without having to do as much rese

Bug#460499: lintian: No need to warn about missing short-description LSB header in init.d scripts

2008-01-13 Thread Russ Allbery
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Package: lintian > Version: 1.23.41 > > Now that the LSB headers in init.d scripts is more used, it has become > obvious that the lintian warning about missing short-description is > not needed. As far as I know, there is nothing using this header

Bug#460499: lintian: No need to warn about missing short-description LSB header in init.d scripts

2008-01-13 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
Package: lintian Version: 1.23.41 Now that the LSB headers in init.d scripts is more used, it has become obvious that the lintian warning about missing short-description is not needed. As far as I know, there is nothing using this header, and quite a lot of scripts are missing it. It is only ni