REVU: Automated Package Checks

[James Westby]

On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 18:44 -0600, Nathan Handler wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Loïc Martin <loic.martin3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > What happens when lintian (or another automated check) throws an error,
> > but that error is not justified? I've seen the case for all cdemu
> > related packages (for example
> > http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?package=cdemu-client ) where
> > lintian reports an error but according to the packager (and my newbie
> > review ;) ) the error is bogus. Maybe it would be possible to get
> > overrides after asking on IRC for a MOTU to check it (even without
> > reviewing the whole package, just checking the error)?
> 
> I actually had thought about this issue a bit. This lintian error that
> you mention is not the only instance of a package that is not lintian
> clean that is technically correct. The issue is, I personally can't
> think of any reliable way to check for these cases. Having a MOTU
> check the error is certainly possible, but I would prefer to keep this
> as automated as possible. This is one reason that I sent an email to
> the mailing list; I am hoping that someone can come up with an
> efficient way to handle these exceptions.
> 

For lintian there are lintian overrides.

It won't solve the issue of e.g. checking installability when someone
uploads two packages, one of which depends on the other.

Thanks,

James