On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 18:04 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius
RC> You don't want to know about the bugs and deficits your packages
RC> suffer from?
Well, to play devil's advocate, if we're to consider lack of
documentation coverage a bug and block inclusion of packages due to
those bugs, then we shouldn't even have a kernel.
This is not about "lack
of docs", but about packages failing their their
own testsuites, because packages ship with broken testsuites.
A "reasonable" upstream being conscious about their weaknesses/deficits
("known bugs") would change their testsuite to "degrade
gracefully" (e.g. to complain only).
Of course we should run test suites, and we should of course block
packages when those test suites fail but are expected to pass. But
blocking due to lack of documentation coverage is pushing things a bit
beyond the bounds of reason.
Well, I guess you are aware that a perl-module without
complete docs (pods) is almost useless.