From: vv221@debian.org 
  
 Le Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 10:31:34AM +0200, Niels Thykier a €€crit : 
 > Antoine Le Gonidec: 
 > > Le Sat, Sep 27, 2025 at 09:41:58AM +0300, Martin-€€ric Racine a €€crit : 
 > > > IMHO, in order for Lintian's severity levels to be meaningful in 
 > > > determining a package's fitness for inclusion in the Debian 
 > > > repository, an Error ought to refer to a MUST[NOT] Policy item, while 
 > > > a Warning ought to refer to a SHOULD[NOT] Policy item. 
 > > 
 > > I second this suggestion, keeping in mind that in some cases it might be 
 > > better to update the Policy instead of lintian. 
 > > 
 > 
 > Coming from another angle, what is the problem you are trying to solve by 
 > re-calibrating all the severity levels? To me, this declaration smells like 
 > a "solution" but I am not sure I understand the "problem" it is supposed to 
 > solve. 
  
 I can not speak for Martin-€€ric, but I can tell you why I support their 
 proposal: the current lintian priorities only tell us what should be 
 fixed in a given package to please€€€ well, lintian itself. 
  
 It does not really tell us if a package is fit for integration into the 
 Debian archive according to the only authoritative document about said 
 integration: the Debian Policy. 
  
 In my packaging activities, it means I often spend time "fixing" things 
 that were not actual packaging problems to begin with. If I could run 
 lintian in some "Policy compliance" mode (or if such mode was its 
 default), I could much more easily avoid this extra work, and put that 
 time in other packaging activities instead. 
  
 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
  
 iHUEABYKAB0WIQSUsdxM90hewW6X7Jhja3j5HOuA2AUCaNe6ygAKCRBja3j5HOuA 
 2DKfAP9WEqUSyEbRItwEH9sI+y0QHNnTmknzJdJzgtRaPUQZzwD/fMapfW7t+/kI 
 tfimfphfjEsRabNi/GNsAJpVFFFvEAI= 
 =QVzB 
 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)