On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote: > On Wednesday 7 March 2018 19:32:48 CET Tobias Frost wrote: > > But the lintian stuff I complained about is not completly fixed, there > > is even a new tag: > > I: gudhi source: quilt-patch-missing-description no-external-doc- > > resources.patch > > > > Please run lintian after every build! Best, include it into pbuilder or > > like! Remember "some sponsors are evil and pedantic  when running > > lintian. > > > >  https://nthykier.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/some-sponsors-are-evil-a > > nd-pedantic/ > > Ah, I'm sorry; I had accidentally run lintian too unpedantically and > with an older version. I've adopted your suggested routine now. Thanks > a lot! > > Some comments/questions on other lintian messages follow. > > > I: gudhi source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" > > in package gudhui > > Since there's nothing inherent about one of the binary packages being > in the same section as the source, I think it should be OK to keep > this as is. Does that seem OK?
You do not need to specify it for binaries when it is in the same section as the source. So all "section: math" of the binary packages could go. But as it is only "informational" you can decide yourself whether you want to keep ti > > P: gudhi source: file-contains-trailing-whitespace debian/control (line > > 110) > > Fixed. > > > P: gudhi source: package-uses-old-debhelper-compat-version 10 > > Fixed. > > > I: gudhi source: quilt-patch-missing-description no-external-doc- > > resources.patch > > Fixed. > > > W: gudhi source: unnecessary-testsuite-autopkgtest-field > > Fixed. > > > I: python3-gudhi: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python3/dist- > > packages/gudhi.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so ment meant > > I: python3-gudhi: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python3/dist- > > packages/gudhi.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so preambule preamble > > I: python3-gudhi: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python3/dist- > > packages/gudhi.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so choosen chosen > > I'd prefer to consider these upstream bugs. I can report them, but I > guess it's OK to leave these minor things unpatched? Again a personal style thing... I usually make a patch for upstream, asking to merge it and as then I'd already have the patch then I also apply it to the Debian package. But It's ok just to send the patch upstream asking to merge it. > > W: libgudhi-examples: lib-recommends-documentation recommends: > > libgudhi-doc > > I think this is a false report; libgudhi-examples is in fact not a > library package. Ok; IMHO it shouls be only a "Suggest" (not "Recommend") here. > > > I: libgudhi-doc: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration > > Fixed. > > > I: gudhui: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/gudhui preambule preamble > > See above. > > > P: gudhui: no-upstream-changelog > > Upstream doesn't supply one. yepp, no need to fix that. > > W: gudhui: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/gudhui > > This is a GUI tool without an upstream manpage. Should I make a stub > one? We usually try to have manpages for every binary. So it would be great if you could make a manpage for it. > > Please review d/copyright. I found at least one undocumented file which > > is licensed Apache 2.0 and another one under LGPL3+. Neither are in > > d/copyright. > > I'm looking into this, and will get back to you. OK. > > Best, > Gard > > > > >