As you have noted, there are numerous POD errors in the documentation.
Most, but not all of them, are due to the pod2man translator enforcing
the rule that, if the first "item" value is numeric, then all subsequent
item values in the same "over/back" set be the next integer. There are
others, such as just plain missing 'back' elements.
Obviously, pod2man was modified at some point to enforce this rule. I
briefly reviewed, and there is no way to selectively 'quiet' it to
ignore these errors. They implement this via both a scream() method and
a whine() method. The latter can be disabled. And, while the errors we
are discussing are reported with whine(), there are a (large?) number of
other tests which should be retained. And, I am certainly in no
position to suggest to QA that it modify its build processes ...
In addition, the lintian report lists a number of misspellings in both
the POD documentation, and in both the built binaries and libraries;
i.e. in a number of source files.
Unfortunately, this begs the question of the proper way to fix these. I
can proceed in most any way you want. My $0.02:
I can fix the item-value-not-next-integer value by either:
1) rearranging the values, or
2) inserting extra back/over pairs between items (will have to verify
this results in same output, but I believe it does).
Note that upstream is probably more amenable to #2.
Obviously, I can fix misspellings from lintian report.
Which then gets us to question(s) about patch files. Would you prefer:
a) 1-2 patch files; i.e. misc-pod-errors.patch and
misc-misspellings.patch
b) separate patch files, one per individual file,
c) merge the patches into any existing patch that references same
source file prior to either a), b)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
