[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       debian-devel
Subject:    Re: LFS status, and enabling it opportunistically on next SONAME bump
From:       Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian () breakpoint ! cc>
Date:       2016-01-27 21:18:25
Message-ID: 20160127211825.GA3171 () breakpoint ! cc
[Download RAW message or body]

On 2015-07-25 05:54:49 [+0200], Guillem Jover wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Guillem,

> > As for the severity: Surely, it could be bumped, but given it is not a
> > tag people can always trivially fix (possibly breaking ABI is not my
> > definition of "trivial"), I am not necessarily convince it is in our
> > best interest to be very loud with this tag.  That said, I can be
> > convinced otherwise as long as it does *not* lead to """blindly "fixed"
> > lintian tag syndrome""".
> 
> Perhaps it could be bumped for binary packages that do not contain any
> shared library, but I'm assuming that is not currently possible(?).
> 
> In any case, even packages that do not trigger the lintian warning are
> not guaranteed to be LFS-safe, this needs either testing or code review.

and now? Should one go around and open bugs with patches for packages
showing up in the warning? The BTS has a few open bugs tagged LFS so I
could start with those once I get bored.

The BUG severity for the LFS bugs would be `normal` normal I guess since
it is not a release goal. Or is down to `wishlist`?

> Thanks,
> Guillem

Sebastian

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]