Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There's an 'informational' level below 'warning' in lintian, right? > Perhaps versioned deps that are only relevant to oldstable could be > dropped from W/E to I?
Okay, that's two votes for dropping it to I. :) I'll take a closer look at what would be involved in adding the infrastructure to keep the warnings around at the I level for oldstable stuff. It should be easy with debconf and x11-common and relatively easy with debhelper. quilt and a few other things will be harder, but I may drop those if I don't see an easy way of doing it. Any reason to keep anything around for versions prior to oldstable, or should that just go away? > The reason I think this is advisable is that the net impact of not > having the versioned dep is approximately zero, and many maintainers > give a high priority to having lintian-clean packages. In the absence > of particular user demand for oldstable backports, I think their time is > better spent elsewhere than on this class of error. Yup, that's my feeling on it too. > From a releasability standpoint, the fact that SETTITLE and error > templates are now supported by all implementors of debconf in stable > means that an explicit dependency is no longer needed. But I don't > imagine this is the last extension that will ever be added to debconf, > so wouldn't it be nice if the debconf implementors would agree on > additional virtual packages to provide as each new extension comes > along? E.g., Provides: debconf-2.0, debconf-error, or Provides: > debconf-2.0, debconf-2.0.1? Yes, that would be very nice. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
