On 2009-07-23, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:12:57AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> On 2009-07-19, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> > Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past
>> > by
>> > willingfully upload packages with overriden lintian errors?
>>
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:12:57AM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2009-07-19, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past by
> > willingfully upload packages with overriden lintian errors?
> Damaged the project... no. Caused a RC bug to be
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 07:15:56PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> There are a great many Debian changelog messages along the lines of “made
> change foo to keep Lintian happy” as though that were the only readon why
> such a change would be beneficial. Apart from being bloody useless, that
> kind of ch
Le Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 10:44:00AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> While I can understand your frustration, your argument looks flawed to
> me. The measure of refusing _automatically_ uploads being affected by
> (certain) lintian errors can not be classified as "a new duty",
> precisely be
On Sun, Jul 19 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> There are a great many Debian changelog messages along the lines of
> “made change foo to keep Lintian happy” as though that were the only
> readon why such a change would be beneficial. Apart from being bloody
> useless, that kind of changelog message stro
Julien BLACHE writes:
> We sure have a few people that would blindly add overrides rather than
> fixing the actual cause of the lintian warning/error. No doubt about
> that.
This might be a symptom of the wider problem, that people see Lintian
not as a series of warning lights indicating probabl
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 09:08:50AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> And today, the NEW queue managed by four persons dedicating 5-10
> hours per week to the Debian archive contains 265 packages, some of
> them waiting for one month or more. I disagree with their decision
> to self-appoint themselves
Charles Plessy wrote:
Hi,
> Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past by
> willingfully upload packages with overriden lintian errors?
We sure have a few people that would blindly add overrides rather than
fixing the actual cause of the lintian warning/error. No
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Damaged the project... no. Caused a RC bug to be overlooked... yes.
> I recently encountered a package where the library's binary package
> was not named after the SONAME. This caused a lintian error which was...
> overridden. And it broke
On 2009-07-19, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past by
> willingfully upload packages with overriden lintian errors?
Damaged the project... no. Caused a RC bug to be overlooked... yes.
I recently encountered a package where the library
Le Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 09:55:30AM +0200, Julien BLACHE a écrit :
>
> Or can I just override every lintian test and upload my totally broken
> package?
Sure you can, yet you never did. Why?
Do we have evidence that maintainers have damaged the project in the past by
willingfully upload packages
On 11815 March 1977, Julien BLACHE wrote:
>> Automatic rejection of packages with errors not justified by overrides is of
> And what do you do with unjustified overrides?
> Or can I just override every lintian test and upload my totally broken
> package?
The way we currently think about it there
Charles Plessy wrote:
Hi,
> Automatic rejection of packages with errors not justified by overrides is of
And what do you do with unjustified overrides?
Or can I just override every lintian test and upload my totally broken
package?
JB.
--
Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer -
Le Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 11:44:54AM +0200, Luk Claes a écrit :
>
> AFAIK the FTP Team is working on a system to prevent uploads which have
> lintian errors. The whole category of lintian errors has already been
> assessed and possible overrides are planned to arrive in the NEW queue
> at least
14 matches
Mail list logo