REVU: Automated Package Checks
jw+debian at jameswestby.net
Fri Jan 23 01:12:15 GMT 2009
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.
More information about the Ubuntu-motu