Bas, On 04/05/2014 11:15 PM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > cme has some behavior I don't like as much, like the automatic > Standards-Version adjustment, and stripping of versions in dependency > when the version requirement is met by all version in Debian.
..or randomly increasing versions, as happened to libgdal-dev. Overall, I'm convinced this tool is not a good fit for postgis. However, I agree that splitting folded lines into one item per line often makes sense from a VCS viewpoint. We can do that *after* fixing real bugs. > Does pgapt also do automatic generation of the control file, or manual > parsing that broke? pgapt simply runs the clean target to generate the control file from control.in. Thus changing the control file's indentation doesn't break pgapt. > As I explained in the override comment, the warning seems to be a > false positive. It isn't. > The .in extension makes lintian think the control file > templates is a po-debconf template, while is only used to generated > the postgres version specific template files in debian/rules. I see no indication of lintian thinking it's a PO template. > http://lintian.debian.org/tags/untranslatable-debconf-templates.html Quoting: "This package seems to be using debconf templates, but some descriptions are not translatable." That sounds correct to me: Currently that message is presented in English to all users and the language team has no chance translating it. That clearly is an issue we should address, rather than override. Also note that if you strip the .in extension and only provide a postgresql-9.3-postgis-2.0-scripts.templates file as a debconf template, lintian still emits the very same warning for that file. I'm now looking into making this message properly translatable. > The control file revert also downgraded the debhelper dependency > version back from 9 to 8, so now debian/compat has a higher version > than the dependency requirement. Good catch, thanks, fixed. > I've changes this, and a formatting issue of the Uploaders field in my > repo. While not visually appealing, I don't see anything wrong, there. That was a perfectly legally folded header field in accordance with the Debian Policy 5.1 (or RFC 5322). I'd say cme is plain wrong when it complains that a '"uniline" value must not contain embedded newlines'. > You may want to cherry pick these changes, but I'm a bit > hesitant to push them now. I corrected the debhelper dependency and tried an upload. Let's see if my DM permissions allow uploading a different source tarball... Regards Markus
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-grass-devel mailing list Pkgfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-grass-devel