Bug#1025868: lintian autopkgtest fails on all but amd64: x86_64-linux-gnu expected build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/desktop/gnome/gir/gir/generic.t
Hi Axel, On 15-01-2023 23:07, Axel Beckert wrote: TL;DR: [...] You're awesome. And indeed, what a shame of your time. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1025868: lintian autopkgtest fails on all but amd64: x86_64-linux-gnu expected build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/desktop/gnome/gir/gir/generic.t
Hi, On 02-01-2023 21:10, Axel Beckert wrote: Another weird point seems that t/recipes/checks/desktop/gnome/gir/gir/eval/desc says: Testname: gir Check: desktop/gnome/gir Test-Architecture: amd64 So that clearly means it should only be run on amd64. So why is it run on arm64 at all? I suspect this is a lintian internal, but I guess you figured that out. Ah, ok. Yeah, kinda makes sense. I kinda expected that this version is usually the one the bug report was written against with any additional version hints being added as secondary version via Control statements. I cake these reports from a template and file them in with what I see on ci.d.n. P.S.: Any idea how we get Salsa CI autopkgtests on arm64? I understand the issue is on the salsa admin side where there are issues with shared runners or something. There is a host available that could run the tests, but the host can't be added for $reasons. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1025868: lintian autopkgtest fails on all but amd64: x86_64-linux-gnu expected build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/desktop/gnome/gir/gir/generic.t
Control: found -1 2.115.3 Control: tag -1 - moreinfo On 10-12-2022 22:55, Axel Beckert wrote: Ehm, that version no more in the archive anywhere. Did you maybe mean 2.115.3 as currently in Testing and Unstable? (Feel free to remove the moreinfo tag once this is clarified.) I meant, I see the issue *since* that version. But indeed, that's a bit weird if not commented on. I have added a `found` version now. Will have to look into it again, but I fear in short term, it means to either reduce the tests or only run a subset on non-amd64 architectures. If the test can't easily support other architectures (which is fine in my opinion) than please ensure it only runs on amd64. I advice to do that by adding a "Architecture: amd64" field to d/t/control. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1025868: lintian autopkgtest fails on all but amd64: x86_64-linux-gnu expected build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/desktop/gnome/gir/gir/generic.t
Source: lintian Version: 2.111.0 Severity: serious User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: regression Dear maintainer(s), Your package has an autopkgtest, great. However, it fails currently everywhere except on amd64. Can you please investigate the situation and fix it? I copied some of the output at the bottom of this report. The release team has announced [1] that failing autopkgtest on amd64 and arm64 are considered RC in testing as are regressions on all release architectures. More information about this bug and the reason for filing it can be found on https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation Paul [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2019/07/msg2.html https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/arm64/l/lintian/28970519/log.gz # Hints do not match # # --- ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/desktop/gnome/gir/gir/hints.specified.calibrated # +++ ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/desktop/gnome/gir/gir/hints.actual.parsed # -gir1.2-good-42 (binary): typelib-not-in-multiarch-directory usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/girepository-1.0 [usr/lib/girepository-1.0/GoodExtras-42.typelib] # -gir1.2-good-42 (binary): typelib-not-in-multiarch-directory usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/girepository-1.0 [usr/lib/girepository-1.0/Good-42.typelib] # +gir1.2-good-42 (binary): typelib-not-in-multiarch-directory usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/girepository-1.0 [usr/lib/girepository-1.0/GoodExtras-42.typelib] # +gir1.2-good-42 (binary): typelib-not-in-multiarch-directory usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/girepository-1.0 [usr/lib/girepository-1.0/Good-42.typelib] # # Failed test 'Lintian passes for gir' # at /usr/share/lintian/lib/Test/Lintian/Run.pm line 343. # Looks like you failed 1 test of 1. ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/desktop/gnome/gir/gir/generic.t ... and # Hints do not match # # --- ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/files/contents/bin-sbin-confusion-in-elf/hints.specified.calibrated # +++ ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/files/contents/bin-sbin-confusion-in-elf/hints.actual.parsed # +bin-sbin-confusion-in-elf (binary): bin-sbin-mismatch sbin/our-script -> usr/bin/our-script [usr/bin/calls-sbin] # +bin-sbin-confusion-in-elf (binary): bin-sbin-mismatch bin/our-script -> usr/bin/our-script [usr/bin/calls-sbin] # # Failed test 'Lintian passes for bin-sbin-confusion-in-elf' # at /usr/share/lintian/lib/Test/Lintian/Run.pm line 343. # Looks like you failed 1 test of 1. ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/files/contents/bin-sbin-confusion-in-elf/generic.t OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1003643: src:lintian: fails to migrate to testing for too long: unresolved RC bug
Hi, On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 08:47:40 +0100 Paul Gevers wrote: The Release Team considers packages that are out-of-sync between testing and unstable for more than 60 days as having a Release Critical bug in testing [1]. Your package src:lintian has been trying to migrate for 61 days [2]. Hence, I am filing this bug. You have an unresolved RC bug that applies to the unstable package but not to the testing package, hence blocking migration. It's been three months. Any progress on this? Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1004536: lintian: suggest Testsuite: autopkgtest-pkg-* when autodep8 detects it should be added
Hi Paul, On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 16:28:54 +0800 Paul Wise wrote: I noticed while packaging some Python modules recently that they were not tested by debci. This is because debci only tests source packages that contain a Testsuite field. The autodep8 tool is able to generate the needed tests, but debci only runs it when the Testsuite field is present and contains an autopkgtest-pkg-* value. The autodep8 tool also contains heuristics to detect packages that could have autopkgtests but right now there is nothing suggesting to maintainers that they should add tests based on autodep8. I suggest that when the Testsuite field is missing, lintian run autodep8 from the unpacked source package dir and when autodep8 prints a test stanza on stdout, emit a tag suggesting that the maintainer add the Testsuite field. If the Testsuite is already present, presumably the maintainer already added some tests that are better than the autodep8 ones. Since autodep8 also prints warnings/errors on stderr, lintian could also emit tags there too. Here is an example of an affected package: $ debsnap python-circuitbreaker 1.3.2-1 $ chronic dpkg-source -x python-circuitbreaker_1.3.2-1.dsc $ cd python-circuitbreaker*/ $ grep Testsuite debian/control $ find debian/tests find: ‘debian/tests’: No such file or directory python-circuitbreaker-1.3.2 $ autodep8 Test-Command: set -e ; for py in $(py3versions -r 2>/dev/null) ; do cd "$AUTOPKGTEST_TMP" ; echo "Testing with $py:" ; $py -c "import circuitbreaker; print(circuitbreaker)" ; done Depends: python3-all, python3-circuitbreaker, Restrictions: allow-stderr, superficial, Features: test-name=autodep8-python3 But this is only useful if the test actually passes. We don't want people to add the field if the test is broken. So if this is implemented, make sure the priority/certainty/whatever is low enough that people will *not* just blindly do this. Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1003643: src:lintian: fails to migrate to testing for too long: unresolved RC bug
Source: lintian Version: 2.111.0 Severity: serious Control: close -1 2.114.0 Tags: sid bookworm User: release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: out-of-sync Control: block -1 by 999768 Dear maintainer(s), The Release Team considers packages that are out-of-sync between testing and unstable for more than 60 days as having a Release Critical bug in testing [1]. Your package src:lintian has been trying to migrate for 61 days [2]. Hence, I am filing this bug. You have an unresolved RC bug that applies to the unstable package but not to the testing package, hence blocking migration. If a package is out of sync between unstable and testing for a longer period, this usually means that bugs in the package in testing cannot be fixed via unstable. Additionally, blocked packages can have impact on other packages, which makes preparing for the release more difficult. Finally, it often exposes issues with the package and/or its (reverse-)dependencies. We expect maintainers to fix issues that hamper the migration of their package in a timely manner. This bug will trigger auto-removal when appropriate. As with all new bugs, there will be at least 30 days before the package is auto-removed. I have immediately closed this bug with the version in unstable, so if that version or a later version migrates, this bug will no longer affect testing. I have also tagged this bug to only affect sid and bookworm, so it doesn't affect (old-)stable. If you believe your package is unable to migrate to testing due to issues beyond your control, don't hesitate to contact the Release Team. Paul [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2020/02/msg5.html [2] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=lintian OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1000476: lintian: autopkgtest regression: autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/binaries/corrupted/legacy-debug/generic.t
Source: lintian Version: 2.113.0 X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org Severity: serious User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: regression Dear maintainer(s), With a recent upload of lintian the autopkgtest of lintian fails in testing when that autopkgtest is run with the binary packages of lintian from unstable. It passes when run with only packages from testing. In tabular form: passfail lintianfrom testing2.113.0 all others from testingfrom testing I copied some of the output at the bottom of this report. Currently this regression is blocking the migration to testing [1]. Can you please investigate the situation and fix it? More information about this bug and the reason for filing it can be found on https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation Paul [1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=lintian https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/armhf/l/lintian/16912872/log.gz ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/tracking/generic-dh-make-2008/generic.t ok ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/lintian-features/lintian-suppress-tags/generic.t ... ok # Literal output does not match # # --- ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/odd-inputs/strings-elf-detection/literal # +++ ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/odd-inputs/strings-elf-detection/literal.actual.parsed # +W: strings-elf-detection-dbgsym: elf-error In program headers: Unable to find program interpreter name [usr/lib/debug/.build-id/45/e1c08eeb668890993873e92eb9c047c87cfb25.debug] # # Failed test 'Lintian passes for strings-elf-detection' # at /usr/share/lintian/lib/Test/Lintian/Run.pm line 341. # Looks like you failed 1 test of 1. ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/odd-inputs/strings-elf-detection/generic.t . Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) Failed 1/1 subtests ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/runner-features/runtests-options/generic.t . ok ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/tracking/generic-dh-make-2005/generic.t ok ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/lintian-features/lintian-display-level/generic.t ... ok ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/runner-features/runtests-calibration/generic.t . ok Test Summary Report --- ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/binaries/corrupted/legacy-debug/generic.t (Wstat: 256 Tests: 1 Failed: 1) Failed test: 1 Non-zero exit status: 1 ../../autopkgtest_tmp/build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/odd-inputs/strings-elf-detection/generic.t (Wstat: 256 Tests: 1 Failed: 1) Failed test: 1 Non-zero exit status: 1 Files=1447, Tests=62792, 303 wallclock secs (11.66 usr 23.72 sys + 4309.74 cusr 32394.30 csys = 36739.42 CPU) Result: FAIL The test suite ran for 5 minutes and 4 seconds. autopkgtest [00:18:34]: test build-and-evaluate-test-packages OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#964405: lintian: autopkgtest regression: No tests were selected by your filter:
Source: lintian Version: 2.82.0 X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org Severity: serious User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: regression Dear maintainer(s), With a recent upload of lintian the autopkgtest of lintian fails in testing when that autopkgtest is run with the binary packages of lintian from unstable. It passes when run with only packages from testing. In tabular form: passfail lintianfrom testing2.82.0 all others from testingfrom testing I copied some of the output at the bottom of this report. Currently this regression is blocking the migration to testing [1]. Can you please investigate the situation and fix it? More information about this bug and the reason for filing it can be found on https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation Paul [1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=lintian https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/l/lintian/6153561/log.gz Running selected and required Perl test scripts. Files=0, Tests=0, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.26 usr + 0.07 sys = 0.33 CPU) Result: NOTESTS No tests were selected by your filter: suite:tags To select your tests, please use an appropriate argument with a selector like: 'suite:', 'test:', 'check:', 'tag:', or 'script:' You can also use 'minimal:', which runs only the tests that cannot be turned off, such as the internal tests for the harness. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#909270: lintian: missing-explanation-for-repacked-upstream-tarball check should look in Source:
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.103 Dear lintian maintainers, According to the policy [1], the Source fields should be used: """If the upstream source has been modified to remove non-free parts, that should be explained in this field.""" That is what I do in the lazarus package. However, lintian complains with the missing-explanation-for-repacked-upstream-tarball tag, because it isn't in the Comments or Files-Excluded field. Paul [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#905030: lintian: please verify debian/tests/control contains more tests than "Test-Command: /bin/true"
Hi Chris, On 31-07-18 16:55, Chris Lamb wrote: >> Rather unconstructively, they refuse to fix it until lintian has the >> warning [2]. > > That seems.. strange. At the very least, Lintian is not Policy. Ack. I filed 6 bugs today against packages in their team (the ones currently trying to migrate). They already fixed the first bug. > Unrelated to the above, do you feel there any real fear that a /bin/ > true would simply be replaced with something else if a maintainer saw > this tag? There are, of course, plenty of no-op commands available in > the base system... :) Yes, let's make sure the message is not "don't use /bin/true (or only true, or exit 0 or echo)" but rather, please make sure the set of autopkgtests actually test the installed package somehow. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#905030: lintian: please verify debian/tests/control contains more tests than "Test-Command: /bin/true"
Hi Chris, On 31-07-18 05:16, Chris Lamb wrote: >> For this proposal to make sense, all deployed autopkgtests must >> actually test the package involved to some extent. > > I fully ACK and understand the issue and background but just to be more > effective priority-wise are you aware of how many packages, if any, > are violating this right now? codesearch [1] suggests it may be ~170 packages. All packages by the GIS team seem to be involved. Rather unconstructively, they refuse to fix it until lintian has the warning [2]. Paul [1] https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=Test-Command%3A%5Cs*%2Fbin%2Ftrue+path%3A%2Fdebian%2Ftests%2Fcontrol [2] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2018-July/071671.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#905030: lintian: please verify debian/tests/control contains more tests than "Test-Command: /bin/true"
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.93 Severity: normal X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: issue Dear lintian maintainers, The Release Team has expressed their wish [1] that autopkgtest does not simply contain /bin/true as test command: """ For this proposal to make sense, all deployed autopkgtests must actually test the package involved to some extent. We trust it will not be necessary to establish a technical solution for this part. """ This has been confirmed on IRC #debian-release on 2018-07-28. Using /bin/true is not a problem in itself, but packages that have a passing autopkgtest of their own (and no regression otherwise) are rewarded with a reduced age. It is this reward that is undesirable for this class of packages as installability is already tested by piuparts (which is considered superior in this respect) and which failure already results in a block. It would be great if lintian could detect it when an autopkgtest: - has only one test - the test command is /bin/true This would even be true if the sole purpose of adding this check would be, to see if such a technical solution is warranted. Proposed text (feel free to use something more in line with other lintian texts): This package has an autopkgtest which will always pass if the package can be installed as it uses the test command "/bin/true". Because the results of autopkgtest influence [2] the migration from unstable to testing this is not desirable [1]. Installability is better tested with piuparts (which is also used to influence migration). . Please, update your autopkgtest to actually test the binary package(s) as installed. You're welcome to have this test *additionally* to actual tests. Thanks for your great work on lintian. Paul [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/08/msg6.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2018/05/msg1.html -- System Information: Debian Release: buster/sid APT prefers testing-debug APT policy: (500, 'testing-debug'), (500, 'testing'), (200, 'testing'), (50, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.17.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.31.1-1 ii bzip2 1.0.6-8.1 ii diffstat 1.61-1+b1 ii dpkg 1.19.0.5+b1 ii file 1:5.33-3 ii gettext0.19.8.1-6+b1 ii intltool-debian0.35.0+20060710.4 ii libapt-pkg-perl0.1.34 ii libarchive-zip-perl1.60-1 ii libclass-accessor-perl 0.51-1 ii libclone-perl 0.39-1 ii libdpkg-perl 1.19.0.5 ii libemail-valid-perl1.202-1 ii libfile-basedir-perl 0.08-1 ii libipc-run-perl20180523.0-1 ii liblist-moreutils-perl 0.416-1+b3 ii libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-12 ii libtext-levenshtein-perl 0.13-1 ii libtimedate-perl 2.3000-2 ii liburi-perl1.74-1 ii libxml-simple-perl 2.25-1 ii libyaml-libyaml-perl 0.72+repack-1 ii man-db 2.8.3-2 ii patchutils 0.3.4-2 ii perl [libdigest-sha-perl] 5.26.2-6 ii t1utils1.41-2 ii xz-utils 5.2.2-1.3 Versions of packages lintian recommends: ii libperlio-gzip-perl 0.19-1+b4 Versions of packages lintian suggests: pn binutils-multiarch ii dpkg-dev 1.19.0.5 ii libhtml-parser-perl3.72-3+b2 ii libtext-template-perl 1.53-1 -- no debconf information signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#896840: lintian: autopkgtest fails with new version of file
Hi Chris, On 26-04-18 09:41, Chris Lamb wrote: > Any thoughts before I essentially re-assign this? No, I am too ignorant on the details of shared libraries and such. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#896840: lintian: autopkgtest fails with new version of file
Hi Chris, On 25-04-18 10:44, Chris Lamb wrote: >> The first change is caused by changed behavior in file regarding >> application/x-sharedlib vs application/x-pie-executable². > > Hm, file appears to be recognising a .so as as "pie executable". I was told on IRC that the thing file has to detect the delta is if the file is executable. Has your test .so an executable bit set? > Is that right? To be honest, I don't know. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#896840: lintian: autopkgtest fails with new version of file
Source: lintian Version: 2.5.84 Severity: normal User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: needs-update With the upload of version 1:5.33-1 of file, the autopkgtest of lintian¹ started to fail with the error copied below. The first change is caused by changed behavior in file regarding application/x-sharedlib vs application/x-pie-executable². Please investigate the situation and update your package accordingly. Paul ¹ https://ci.debian.net/packages/l/lintian/ ² https://github.com/file/file/commit/7dbecfe406a6bb2de1fe7ec2fe413dcd8871ac74#diff-02f0b547c2779d25cff89672135f20e3 autopkgtest [12:51:04]: test testsuite: [--- running tests mkdir -p "/tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.x6opmumq/downtmp/autopkgtest_tmp/testsuite" t/runtests -k -j 2 t "/tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.x6opmumq/downtmp/autopkgtest_tmp/testsuite" suite:changes,debs,source,tests ENV[LINTIAN_TEST_INSTALLED]=yes ENV[PATH]=/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/local/games:/usr/games S..S...T T... tests::binaries-libc-link: diff -u t/tests/binaries-libc-link/tags /tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.x6opmumq/downtmp/autopkgtest_tmp/testsuite/tests/binaries-libc-link/tags.binaries-libc-link --- t/tests/binaries-libc-link/tags 2018-04-23 11:50:51.0 + +++ /tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.x6opmumq/downtmp/autopkgtest_tmp/testsuite/tests/binaries-libc-link/tags.binaries-libc-link 2018-04-24 12:54:23.305457114 + @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ -E: binaries-libc-link: library-not-linked-against-libc usr/lib/basic/libbasic-nolibc E: binaries-libc-link: program-not-linked-against-libc usr/bin/basic -W: binaries-libc-link: shared-lib-without-dependency-information usr/lib/basic/libbasic-nodeps +E: binaries-libc-link: program-not-linked-against-libc usr/lib/basic/libbasic-nolibc +E: binaries-libc-link: statically-linked-binary usr/lib/basic/libbasic-nodeps fail tests::binaries-libc-link: output differs! .S.S ..S.S..SS... .S.. ...S... tests::legacy-libbaz: diff -u t/tests/legacy-libbaz/tags /tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.x6opmumq/downtmp/autopkgtest_tmp/testsuite/tests/libbaz/tags.libbaz --- t/tests/legacy-libbaz/tags 2018-04-23 11:50:51.0 + +++ /tmp/autopkgtest-lxc.x6opmumq/downtmp/autopkgtest_tmp/testsuite/tests/libbaz/tags.libbaz 2018-04-24 13:20:23.395299338 + @@ -14,7 +14,6 @@ E: libbaz1: maintainer-shell-script-fails-syntax-check postinst E: libbaz1: missing-dependency-on-perlapi E: libbaz1: package-must-activate-ldconfig-trigger usr/lib/libfoo2.so.1.0.3b -E: libbaz1: sharedobject-in-library-directory-missing-soname usr/lib/libbaz1.so.1.0.3b E: libbaz1: shlib-missing-in-control-file libbaz2 1.0 for usr/lib/libfoo2.so.1.0.3b E: libbaz1: shlib-with-executable-bit usr/lib/libfoo2.so.1.0.3b 0755 E: libbaz1: symbols-declared-but-not-shlib libbaz 2 fail tests::legacy-libbaz: output differs! .. Skipped/disabled tests: [debs] deb-format-wrong-order: Unmet test dependencies: dpkg (<< 1.17.2) [tests] binaries-missing-lfs: architecture mismatch changelog-file-strange-date: Unmet test dependencies: dpkg (<< 1.18.2) deb-format-udeb-compression: Unmet test dependencies: dpkg (<< 1.18.11) debconf-config-not-executable: Unmet test dependencies: dpkg (<< 1.19.0) debhelper-compat: Unmet test dependencies: debhelper (<< 9.20151101~) debhelper-compat-empty: Unmet test dependencies: debhelper (<< 9.20151101~) runtests-arch-i386: architecture mismatch shared-libs-non-pic-i386: architecture mismatch version-substvars-obsolete: Unmet test dependencies: dpkg (<< 1.17.2) Failed tests (2) tests::binaries-libc-link tests::legacy-libbaz make: *** [debian/rules:50: runtests] Error 1 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#891935: lintian: Wil is a common Dutch name making spelling-error-in-copyright buggy
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.76 Severity: normal -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Recently I started seeing "spelling-error-in-copyright Wil Will". I checked my copyright file and the only Wil I could find is in the names of copyright holders. Wil is a rather common name in the Netherlands, please don't assume it is a spelling error. Paul - -- System Information: Debian Release: buster/sid APT prefers testing-debug APT policy: (500, 'testing-debug'), (500, 'testing'), (200, 'testing'), (50, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.14.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.30-5 ii bzip2 1.0.6-8.1 ii diffstat 1.61-1+b1 ii dpkg 1.19.0.5 ii file 1:5.32-2 ii gettext 0.19.8.1-4 ii intltool-debian 0.35.0+20060710.4 ii libapt-pkg-perl 0.1.33 ii libarchive-zip-perl 1.60-1 ii libclass-accessor-perl0.51-1 ii libclone-perl 0.39-1 ii libdpkg-perl 1.19.0.5 ii libemail-valid-perl 1.202-1 ii libfile-basedir-perl 0.07-1 ii libipc-run-perl 0.96-1 ii liblist-moreutils-perl0.416-1+b3 ii libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-12 ii libperl5.26 [libdigest-sha-perl] 5.26.1-5 ii libtext-levenshtein-perl 0.13-1 ii libtimedate-perl 2.3000-2 ii liburi-perl 1.73-1 ii libxml-simple-perl2.24-1 ii libyaml-libyaml-perl 0.69+repack-1 ii man-db2.8.1-1 ii patchutils0.3.4-2 ii perl 5.26.1-5 ii t1utils 1.41-2 ii xz-utils 5.2.2-1.3 Versions of packages lintian recommends: ii libperlio-gzip-perl 0.19-1+b4 Versions of packages lintian suggests: pn binutils-multiarch ii dpkg-dev 1.19.0.5 ii libhtml-parser-perl3.72-3+b2 ii libtext-template-perl 1.47-1 - -- no debconf information -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEWLZtSHNr6TsFLeZynFyZ6wW9dQoFAlqZoCEACgkQnFyZ6wW9 dQr8/Qf+ITyMRePzBEo48URc52DodD3CKpddhspKiCoYZAYGJU7JtI/x+u+Erl7d /nxWQd1cmx9ngvlDoStf4fMjQBQYxu6dStwQ6syzNgiIxTQ6T4kQVU9VQpWOUSxR olKvhBB4t7rOqYXxZYR5MHK7Ryq7DP8JnOaHSwR7VssoMn8smsXFnxt7DyJJmxo1 ydol/dMgq6JSzVEmzqrb3hBZuZsew3dBJ3RmBjp2osnesmuRg2gYl7op46Az/NyC DJZVuJ6e/udJCYLZjOVG/pvwhFJN/nZFggpGr6lvPXEl4Xo676hpGEPGFi4FQJoR hB+0wPc9fZ+YdUvnYoVll8hR9n+xoQ== =n6Sz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#883356: lintian: emacsen-common-without-dh-elpa links to non-existent man page
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.60 Severity: minor Tags: patch -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Lintian warning emacsen-common-without-dh-elpa mentions the dl-elpa(1) man page. That page doesn't exist. It should most likely mention the dl_elpa(1) man page. - -- System Information: Debian Release: buster/sid APT prefers testing-debug APT policy: (500, 'testing-debug'), (500, 'testing'), (200, 'testing'), (50, 'testing') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.13.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.29.1-8 ii bzip2 1.0.6-8.1 ii diffstat 1.61-1+b1 ii dpkg 1.19.0.4 ii file 1:5.32-1 ii gettext 0.19.8.1-4 ii intltool-debian 0.35.0+20060710.4 ii libapt-pkg-perl 0.1.33 ii libarchive-zip-perl 1.59-1 ii libclass-accessor-perl0.51-1 ii libclone-perl 0.39-1 ii libdpkg-perl 1.19.0.4 ii libemail-valid-perl 1.202-1 ii libfile-basedir-perl 0.07-1 ii libipc-run-perl 0.96-1 ii liblist-moreutils-perl0.416-1+b3 ii libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-12 ii libperl5.26 [libdigest-sha-perl] 5.26.1-2 ii libtext-levenshtein-perl 0.13-1 ii libtimedate-perl 2.3000-2 ii liburi-perl 1.72-2 ii libxml-simple-perl2.24-1 ii libyaml-libyaml-perl 0.63-2+b2 ii man-db2.7.6.1-4 ii patchutils0.3.4-2 ii perl 5.26.1-2 ii t1utils 1.41-2 ii xz-utils 5.2.2-1.3 Versions of packages lintian recommends: ii libperlio-gzip-perl 0.19-1+b4 Versions of packages lintian suggests: pn binutils-multiarch ii dpkg-dev 1.19.0.4 ii libhtml-parser-perl3.72-3+b2 ii libtext-template-perl 1.47-1 - -- no debconf information -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEWLZtSHNr6TsFLeZynFyZ6wW9dQoFAlojHI8ACgkQnFyZ6wW9 dQrIpwf/bVvRoaZNa867TrmUyv9F+rgMyb6/Pl706KNDeov9OgTAm8YvfG2Y3ytv 7sks4Z9jOPHNnaeNXovYSgyKS82p8DBKxb9tlQu788FW0gyBxZmvpaBTtWgQFKbS vyyuVkfO4OZoxB+PWEzbFSViiSDlv0Hpko2jEWD4Fv5waiqmSv9ANJDkKJRSA9Ww Vt5e/g6uLMEBvnpu7T+FzbfKbtNAKoTdVtOiPoqt3QcDmav2pgjCnPoElCFbtami YK6FHwn2WIEQ0fcrXMUpMfcBfLzv9RJu3OAU1wDKfqYHKsJtGI6SkvCJIW6yDE2a OpFTJEuXFOpbw92lOtiXFeyptCL8DA== =Geso -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#861897: lintian: check if the pathname part of dpkg-maint-helper script is owned by the package
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.50.3 Severity: wishlist -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 While trying out my latest fix for one of my packages, I got an error from dpkg-maintscript-helper: dpkg-maintscript-helper: error: directory '' contains files not owned by package , cannot switch to symlink I mistakenly had the first and second argument swapped. It would be nice if lintian could check that the first argument to the symlink_to_dir, dir_to_symlink and rm_conffile calls and the first two arguments of mv_conffile are owned by the package. Paul - -- System Information: Debian Release: 9.0 APT prefers testing-debug APT policy: (500, 'testing-debug'), (500, 'testing'), (200, 'experimental'), (200, 'testing'), (50, 'experimental'), (50, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.28-4 ii bzip2 1.0.6-8.1 ii diffstat 1.61-1+b1 ii file 1:5.29-3 ii gettext 0.19.8.1-2 ii intltool-debian 0.35.0+20060710.4 ii libapt-pkg-perl 0.1.32 ii libarchive-zip-perl 1.59-1 ii libclass-accessor-perl0.34-1 ii libclone-perl 0.38-2+b1 ii libdpkg-perl 1.18.23 ii libemail-valid-perl 1.202-1 ii libfile-basedir-perl 0.07-1 ii libipc-run-perl 0.94-1 ii liblist-moreutils-perl0.416-1+b1 ii libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-12 ii libperl5.24 [libdigest-sha-perl] 5.24.1-2 ii libtext-levenshtein-perl 0.13-1 ii libtimedate-perl 2.3000-2 ii liburi-perl 1.71-1 ii libyaml-libyaml-perl 0.63-2 ii man-db2.7.6.1-2 ii patchutils0.3.4-2 ii perl 5.24.1-2 ii t1utils 1.39-2 ii xz-utils 5.2.2-1.2+b1 Versions of packages lintian recommends: ii dpkg 1.18.23 ii libperlio-gzip-perl 0.19-1+b2 ii perl 5.24.1-2 ii perl-modules-5.22 [libautodie-perl] 5.22.2-5 ii perl-modules-5.24 [libautodie-perl] 5.24.1-2 Versions of packages lintian suggests: pn binutils-multiarch ii dpkg-dev 1.18.23 ii libhtml-parser-perl3.72-3 ii libtext-template-perl 1.46-1 - -- no debconf information -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEWLZtSHNr6TsFLeZynFyZ6wW9dQoFAlkMeY4ACgkQnFyZ6wW9 dQqNrwf+L7tniau2A6rHA1PiCAVf9w1YflqgI3H+b0Hjgce715dulzjL2of6VEyo TJOl08lyhCJu1A+Cd173akwrnxWcAlCIAk+jMebMrki8xCT9UNHl4SfaAXbhNLG2 fU1cDYadFuFDdntfDtq5lobseNdYVObEYMv/9SL0tIqceFOSLRMoNaKtctZ9fbZ1 nSgmQbDMuHdeuGqWKFdG/D2GiHsn0ku6TgIyIS4pstmQwsmCXCUVvTOWyqtQDJmu vY9j+ZW2vH2Jve3wWQo6umjxNV3unqMGlrI3tAw/x9LoEoDXzAoMJE6PYUFPj6N8 LPlqFmfIcUBr34vVLwUnTYcdFmzOiQ== =XX4x -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#825222: lintian: please allow debian/source/timestamps in unknown-file-in-debian-source
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.44 Severity: normal -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 In the Free Pascal stack, it is common to have .ppu files. Consider them sort of binary header files. Unfortunately, these files contain the timestamp of the source file. This is undesirable because when these files are patched, the timestamp of the build is stored in those ppu files and so: 1) the build becomes unreproducible¹ 2) reverse dependent packages think the source was updated and will require a rebuild of the source To circumvent this I am adding a helper function to the fpc package (see discussions on the pascal-devel list²) to store timestamps in the debian packaging and use those to force the timestamps to something resonable. I intent to store those timestamps in debian/source/timestamps. I think that is a resonable place, so please don't error out on it in unknown-file-in-debian-source. Thanks for lintian. Paul ¹ https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/TimestampsInPPUGeneratedByFPC ² http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/Week-of-Mon-20160516/001234.html - -- System Information: Debian Release: 8.4 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable'), (60, 'unstable'), (50, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXRKW+AAoJEJxcmesFvXUK2loH/Rue6UlBKxIkBOuPdiDLj03o tx0p3cl/oJuurRH9KWyO3gP1zDfkufwQP96vAPYUutCkczypOo4qoSxnyuBwAJzL qM/qhFEwj68SVvq9PdAe4IBEy8U1/XCeZ+qkAgDWwYVMO6Hm9jF3DFMpKbi92zm3 leOqyyhXsY/8R2vA6GvAQnqodLceZw6NI3h4wEd4LAC8wlErVBlcNEx0VEActFc6 pzyrRW2rh1UX2G9FpDQhAxgoV2qnr3hLdUGlGOKMOB12imMzUrIV7if7n4NUsIPr q/Ks9mJTkd3cs1QjNCwU/RDEmTa0nUlnefOcrlXng8Hq8AaQLwXFnccWFhax5/Q= =PFO1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#815994: lintian: false positive for source-is-missing in cacti package
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.41 Severity: normal -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 My package cacti contains a js file that clearly is not pre-build javascript. The file in question is include/js/jquery.zoom.js which can be found here: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-cacti/cacti.git/tree/include/js/jquery.zoom.js As requested by the lintian message, I report this false positive. Thanks for your work on Lintian, it is much appreciated. Paul -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW0FHrAAoJEJxcmesFvXUKMHQH/2cC5uJxVhlF6sLcIb/R3w/i LoNFOPYheqChiK8p6fjZl/CyPIV12gpJkDIypzXdG5Jj8UD/clww9ERJgDCklW/L H3k52TezHnUYR4AtN3mr3JN8WzfmyiEn4kFMMMKKXDVEWONjRDG5H0Gt8RtiD/r/ Jdo/Zid8D/sbSLDAT3RuiKMOXHiZxDsi76ojwGUv2oCbJzzK6lFkojxeHJGQfip9 /sYCNubV/gMod47jzC3LSDIAdaUQbo3l8di3BbXR65u8UMZUFZmZCKkirVuuUpBG p4Y3qtR8SJ49OA8sGFfZm6WccC89XAGKY+Am4nRyKzbN+iqZ5yb2AcHK8GqVgVI= =uwYM -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#764067: lintian: prevent misuse of overrides by allowing maintainer comments
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.28~bpo70+1 Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: Debian mentors debian-ment...@lists.debian.org Hi Lintian maintainers, The following wish list bug results from a brief discussion (see the final message with more information below) on the d-mentors e-mail-list. It is noted that people use lintian overrides to hide investigated issues that don't have a short term solution. Paul Wise mentioned this is not where overrides are for. So, Paul and I suggest the following: - Add a way to document information about lintian messages, related to the current package, such that it is clear that the message has been investigated but can/will not be solved (in the short term). - Add an argument to lintian to not show messages that have such a comment to allow a maintainer to focus on unresolved/uninvestigated/new messages instead of either abusing overrides or having to remember everything. Thanks for considering and the great tool that lintian is. Paul Original Message Subject: Re: lintian overrides [Was: Bug#763540: Review of psocksxx/0.0.5-1] Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 09:12:25 +0800 From: Paul Wise p...@debian.org To: Debian mentors debian-ment...@lists.debian.org On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Paul Gevers wrote: I have seen this before and I (as a maintainer) don't understand this comment so bold as it is put here. I would say that overrides can help you to see which items you (or your sponsee¹ in case of sponsorship) already investigated. The point of lintian overrides is to hide issues shown by default that are the fault of lintian where lintian cannot be fixed. Anything else is not the way overrides were meant to be used. In the case of pedantic and info, you could even say that an override is allowed when the item might be still valid but for whatever reason is not going to be fixed (soon). Valid suggestions by lintian shouldn't be hidden. pedantic, experimental and info are hidden by default so there is no need to hide them even if they are the fault of lintian and can't be fixed in lintian, much of the time they are valid issues though. lintian on nearly every build I do and it help me to keep track of the issue I think I still need to resolve. As long as each override has an extensive and valid explanation, I don't see anything wrong with that and I prefer it over having to scroll through items that are ignored anyways. That is an interesting use-case but I think just comments in README.source or elsewhere is the way to go rather than overrides. I think it would be interesting to be able to add comments associated with lintian tags but not override them, so it would produce something like the below (with pedantic turned on). That would cover your use-case without misusing overrides. C: No time to write manual pages, help welcome W: codespell: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/codespell C: Need to ask upstream about this P: codespell: no-upstream-changelog Could you file a bug asking for this feature? Perhaps something like this in debian/package.lintian-comments could be the way to go? # No time to write manual pages, help welcome codespell: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/codespell # Need to ask upstream about this codespell: no-upstream-changelog As a sponsor, I always check all the overrides and only accept those I understand. Documenting the reason goes a long way for that (as well as it helps in the future to remember the original reasoning). Documentation is definitely useful, especially during sponsorship, but it doesn't need overrides. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#748452: lintian: please check if fields in machine-readable copyright file actually contain data
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.22.1~bpo70+1 Severity: wishlist -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I accidentily created a d/copyright file which follows the format of the machine readable style [1] but did not have any content in the Copyright: fields of one of the paragraphs. Lintian didn't catch it (luckily I still did myself). It would be nice if lintian didn't only check if the required fields are there, but also if they are filled. Example: Files: source/component/tipue/jquery-1.7.1.min.js debian/source/jquery-1.7.1.js Copyright: License: Expat Comment: jQuery projects are released under the terms of the MIT license. [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ - -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.5 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable'), (99, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.22-8 ii bzip2 1.0.6-4 ii diffstat 1.55-3 ii file 1:5.17-1~bpo70+1 ii gettext0.18.1.1-9 ii hardening-includes 2.2 ii intltool-debian0.35.0+20060710.1 ii libapt-pkg-perl0.1.26+b1 ii libarchive-zip-perl1.30-6 ii libclass-accessor-perl 0.34-1 ii libclone-perl 0.31-1+b2 ii libdpkg-perl 1.16.14 ii libemail-valid-perl0.190-1 ii libfile-basedir-perl 0.03-1 ii libipc-run-perl0.92-1 ii liblist-moreutils-perl 0.33-1+b1 ii libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-1 ii libtext-levenshtein-perl 0.06~01-2 ii libtimedate-perl 1.2000-1 ii liburi-perl1.60-1 ii man-db 2.6.2-1 ii patchutils 0.3.2-1.1 ii perl [libdigest-sha-perl] 5.14.2-21+deb7u1 ii t1utils1.37-2 Versions of packages lintian recommends: ii libautodie-perl 2.19-1 ii libperlio-gzip-perl 0.18-1+b2 ii perl-modules [libautodie-perl] 5.14.2-21+deb7u1 Versions of packages lintian suggests: pn binutils-multiarch none ii dpkg-dev 1.16.14 ii libhtml-parser-perl3.69-2 ii libtext-template-perl 1.45-2 ii libyaml-perl 0.81-1 ii xz-utils 5.1.1alpha+20120614-2 - -- no debconf information -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJTd0y8AAoJEJxcmesFvXUK9c0H/3i5pokYCJW90tipVfNIPltO BPskU1HnRNRIJfjSq+3SvfSerneQ+sSsvTv1sxN2bq/rs/FirCM9OHBxcIy8eSQl BLAty0XEXsxVADP4oMsgoSitHe5ZWNdMuqpw/rn8DeNW7v1m8JJAeS5P/ez76OXK Dq6lUn+CuYpcx8fhCYccoOh9IctmPEF5AZEV26cWPihNP6U2K0Sk1kimdpkXY78C ndoqvHDGF2Pbt95NiS4QmhK4nEy0WLtN8wd98kCFIVdxm2Asi+eNijTMHtippUJm DgyQdL0PMDgVlIet/Dz6mRzLshPR6HSGCyT3bBhlAoPHxSc6PNE09U9nUPgG5Kc= =516q -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140517114917.16845.18236.report...@wollumbin.marsaxlokk.homelinux.org
Bug#745802: Please add libcpre.gcc.o to list of not distributable files
On 26-04-14 12:49, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: Added, notes that you should ask to remove previous version of fpc from datas.debian.org Sure, but I will do that after the current version of fpc has cleared the NEW queue. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#745802: Please add libcpre.gcc.o to list of not distributable files
Package: lintian Context: cae2spab6s3wxkx+9enfheoci2bfq4o4+h__vkup6c2a93lw...@mail.gmail.com On 21-04-14 21:51, roucaries bastien wrote: Could you open a lintian bug with: - md5sum - sha1 - sha256 of the previous file. I will add to not distributable list of file paul@wollumbin $ md5sum libcpre.gcc.o 90c983b1d401c770bb28b03ad8791f9d libcpre.gcc.o paul@wollumbin $ sha1sum libcpre.gcc.o 241278e1b032954bdff6405b3c963c8f0208ad51 libcpre.gcc.o paul@wollumbin $ sha256sum libcpre.gcc.o 3db379a515ed0abd0dc74a149e1b7039b9b2978e61470c8021b1cebb02750145 libcpre.gcc.o signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#745546: Re: Bug#745546: lintian: False positive: openttd source: source-is-missing os/dos/cwsdpmi/cwsdpmi.txt
On 22-04-14 20:47, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 19:17 +0200, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: The file referenced is somehow detected as a binary, even though it is just a text file containing licensing info and documentation. The file itself is available here: http://vcs.openttd.org/svn/browser/tags/1.4.0/os/dos/cwsdpmi/cwsdpmi.txt I suspect due to (on wheezy at least): $ file /tmp/cwsdpmi.txt /tmp/cwsdpmi.txt: Macromedia Flash data (compressed), version 68 So, shouldn't this bug be reassigned to the file package? Paul [I have indeed two such files in my fpc package]. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#713844: lintian: debug-file-with-no-debug-symbols reports false positives on winff-dbg
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.13 Severity: normal -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Dear lintian maintainers, As a heavy user of your package I like to inform you that I get debug-file-with-no-debug-symbols reported against my package winff-dbg. I verified with gdb that my package does contain the wished debugging symbols. I don't understand why my package does not follow this DWARF spec that is mentioned in the report, but it is likely caused by the compiler I use: Free Pascal. It could very well be a bug in fpc that it is not following this spec, but I am not in the position to determine if it should. Maybe someone could comment on that. Paul - -- System Information: Debian Release: 7.1 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable'), (99, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.22-8 ii bzip2 1.0.6-4 ii diffstat 1.55-3 ii file 5.11-2 ii gettext0.18.1.1-9 ii hardening-includes 2.2 ii intltool-debian0.35.0+20060710.1 ii libapt-pkg-perl0.1.26+b1 ii libarchive-zip-perl1.30-6 ii libclass-accessor-perl 0.34-1 ii libclone-perl 0.31-1+b2 ii libdpkg-perl 1.16.10 ii libemail-valid-perl0.190-1 ii libfile-basedir-perl 0.03-1 ii libipc-run-perl0.92-1 ii liblist-moreutils-perl 0.33-1+b1 ii libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-1 ii libtext-levenshtein-perl 0.06~01-2 ii libtimedate-perl 1.2000-1 ii liburi-perl1.60-1 ii man-db 2.6.2-1 ii patchutils 0.3.2-1.1 ii perl [libdigest-sha-perl] 5.14.2-21 ii t1utils1.37-2 Versions of packages lintian recommends: ii libautodie-perl 2.19-1 ii libperlio-gzip-perl 0.18-1+b2 ii perl-modules [libautodie-perl] 5.14.2-21 Versions of packages lintian suggests: pn binutils-multiarch none ii dpkg-dev 1.16.10 ii libhtml-parser-perl3.69-2 ii libtext-template-perl 1.45-2 ii xz-utils 5.1.1alpha+20120614-2 - -- no debconf information -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJRxsAfAAoJEJxcmesFvXUKXLsIAKS6lhC1gkMB93KAGQo2Al3j TLQ5sFcHroqOla6Qdz4QsJkhMyvO03L0+hpiXmQphWT1QV2UBW5qvIrQ8KNWG1Qf GWKHUubvm1Ut8vuOhi1bdeFACfq4Y+jGy5GrLW2s9LnTQuhwAZfmltrnSen1Oa5E ZF4FV/F+5uRtgHaslWjc4uBiBGs1RhFLrDAKKPAbM7daKsD7lEOJjUOKKzCKLfG+ Zr++wO7lJMpvTH7Ah6i2A6S7veb0bymY1+iWIZn+KEaraJPxns+r3Yq9d908FZDE c73ocj2FkONsSEIrR4H4BtVTyK55+THNmUzPj7iXCrv7BewT3ky3MQxLAhhRceU= =va40 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130623093008.11863.97821.report...@wollumbin.marsaxlokk.homelinux.org
Bug#683059: lintian: package-contains-broken-symlink should also check recommended packages
On 22-10-12 22:32, Niels Thykier wrote: On 2012-07-28 10:16, Paul Gevers wrote: In my package I want to create a symlinks to manpages in a recommended package (the binaries use update-alternatives to provide the proper variant). I would nearly consider this recommended package a dependency but doing so would cause a circular dependency and anyway policy [7.2] says: I think the error would disappear if you were to put the symlink in the recommended package? I appreciate that this may not be as easy as I make it sound. The point is I want to prevent duplication of data (the 2 recommended packages could have the same file of course, but that would in case of large data not be nice): winff (in experimental) depends on winff-gtk2 or winff-qt winff contains winff.1 winff-gtk2 and winff-qt both have a symlink to winff.1 winff-gtk2 and winff-qt both recommend winff (to provide menu and man page) So I believe that symlinks to recommended packages should be fine, and as such the package-contains-broken-symlink check should also consider recommended packages next to depends packages. Strictly speaking it would still allow the package to ship a broken symlink, even if the situation is rare... True. But I suppose the real question is whether Recommends is strong enough for this purpose... Right. In my case I think it is. I consider the man page very important, but not critical for a package to work. But of course, in the general case for this check it might not be true. Maybe I should just overwrite the Lintian warning. What do you think? Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#683059: lintian: package-contains-broken-symlink should also check recommended packages
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.10 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, In my package I want to create a symlinks to manpages in a recommended package (the binaries use update-alternatives to provide the proper variant). I would nearly consider this recommended package a dependency but doing so would cause a circular dependency and anyway policy [7.2] says: Recommends: This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency. The Recommends field should list packages that would be found together with this one in *all but unusual installations*. [Emphasize by me.] So I believe that symlinks to recommended packages should be fine, and as such the package-contains-broken-symlink check should also consider recommended packages next to depends packages. Feel free to tell me I am wrong in this, but please provide arguments. Grtz Paul [7.2] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-binarydeps -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-26-generic-pae (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.22-7.1 ii bzip2 1.0.6-3 ii diffstat 1.55-3 ii file 5.11-2 ii gettext0.18.1.1-9 ii hardening-includes 2.2 ii intltool-debian0.35.0+20060710.1 ii libapt-pkg-perl0.1.26+b1 ii libarchive-zip-perl1.30-6 ii libc-bin 2.13-34 ii libclass-accessor-perl 0.34-1 ii libclone-perl 0.31-1+b2 ii libdpkg-perl 1.16.8 ii libemail-valid-perl0.190-1 ii libipc-run-perl0.91-1 ii libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-1 ii libtimedate-perl 1.2000-1 ii liburi-perl1.60-1 ii man-db 2.6.2-1 ii patchutils 0.3.2-1.1 ii perl [libdigest-sha-perl] 5.14.2-12 lintian recommends no packages. Versions of packages lintian suggests: pn binutils-multiarch none ii dpkg-dev 1.16.8 pn libhtml-parser-perlnone pn libperlio-gzip-perlnone pn libtext-template-perl none ii man-db 2.6.2-1 ii xz-utils [lzma]5.1.1alpha+20120614-1 -- no debconf information signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#683060: lintian: *-command-not-in-package could check for alternatives in dependent packages
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.10 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, In my package I want to provide a binary via update-alternatives to provide the multiple variants of the same program (a gtk2 and a qt variant). I want to ship one desktop file and one menu file in a package that depends on the either of the variants. Currently both desktop-command-not-in-package and menu-command-not-in-package raise a warning on this setup, but I believe they are false positives that could be checked on the use of update-alternatives in dependent packages. Grtz Paul -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-26-generic-pae (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.22-7.1 ii bzip2 1.0.6-3 ii diffstat 1.55-3 ii file 5.11-2 ii gettext0.18.1.1-9 ii hardening-includes 2.2 ii intltool-debian0.35.0+20060710.1 ii libapt-pkg-perl0.1.26+b1 ii libarchive-zip-perl1.30-6 ii libc-bin 2.13-34 ii libclass-accessor-perl 0.34-1 ii libclone-perl 0.31-1+b2 ii libdpkg-perl 1.16.8 ii libemail-valid-perl0.190-1 ii libipc-run-perl0.91-1 ii libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-1 ii libtimedate-perl 1.2000-1 ii liburi-perl1.60-1 ii man-db 2.6.2-1 ii patchutils 0.3.2-1.1 ii perl [libdigest-sha-perl] 5.14.2-12 lintian recommends no packages. Versions of packages lintian suggests: pn binutils-multiarch none ii dpkg-dev 1.16.8 pn libhtml-parser-perlnone pn libperlio-gzip-perlnone pn libtext-template-perl none ii man-db 2.6.2-1 ii xz-utils [lzma]5.1.1alpha+20120614-1 -- no debconf information signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#672297: lintian: False positive package-contains-broken-symlink for files created during postinst
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.6 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, My package cacti replaces an upstream file with a symlink to /etc/cacti/debian.php. This later file is created upon configuration by dbconfig-common. I therefor think this package-contains-broken-symlink is a false positive in that case. Furthermore, in postinst it (tries to) create /usr/local/share/ files. Links in the normal /usr/share/cacti try point to it to provide a place where local administrator can put there files. Again, I believe this is a false positive. Paul -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-24-generic-pae (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.22-6 ii bzip2 1.0.6-1 ii diffstat 1.55-2 ii file 5.11-1 ii gettext0.18.1.1-7 ii intltool-debian0.35.0+20060710.1 ii libapt-pkg-perl0.1.26+b1 ii libc-bin 2.13-32 ii libclass-accessor-perl 0.34-1 ii libclone-perl 0.31-1+b2 ii libdpkg-perl 1.16.3 ii libemail-valid-perl0.190-1 ii libipc-run-perl0.91-1 ii libparse-debianchangelog-perl 1.2.0-1 ii libtimedate-perl 1.2000-1 ii liburi-perl1.60-1 ii man-db 2.6.1-2 ii patchutils 0.3.2-1.1 ii perl [libdigest-sha-perl] 5.14.2-10 ii unzip 6.0-6 lintian recommends no packages. Versions of packages lintian suggests: ii binutils-multiarch none ii dpkg-dev 1.16.3 ii libhtml-parser-perlnone ii libtext-template-perl none ii man-db 2.6.1-2 ii xz-utils 5.1.1alpha+20110809-3 -- no debconf information signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#548640: lintian check for dpatch describtion could honnor DEP3 style description
I assume from that that dpatch supports DEP-3 and doesn't get confused by comments not using that prefix? The patches apply cleanly. So I assume, yes. Header is maintained by dpatch-edit-patch when the @DPATCH@ tag is found (according to it's own comments). Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#548640: lintian check for dpatch describtion could honnor DEP3 style description
The operation that I'd want to be sure to test is modifying the patch and regenerating it and being sure that dpatch retained the comments rather than rewriting the header and losing them. Just did that and no problem. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#548640: lintian check for dpatch describtion could honnor DEP3 style description
Package: lintian Version: 2.2.17 Severity: wishlist In my packages I put the description of patches according to DEP-3 [1]. It would be nice if lintian would not complain about dpatch-missing-description when the fields described by DEP-3 are available instead of the ## DP: lines. Paul [1] http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#526435: lintian: [checks/binaries.desc] Please add to the description that the case of the string can be different
Package: lintian Version: 2.2.10 Severity: wishlist *** Please type your report below this line *** I spend quite some time yesterday of finding a sting which was in all CAPS. Please add some comment to the description that the string reported might be found in any variant of capitization. Maybe also a add comment on how to find the string yourself, i.e. use strings binary | grep -i string. Kind regards Paul -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.28-11-generic (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=nl_NL.UTF-8 (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.19.1-1 The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii diffstat 1.46-1produces graph of changes introduc ii dpkg-dev 1.14.26 Debian package development tools ii file 5.00-1Determines file type using magic ii gettext0.17-6GNU Internationalization utilities ii intltool-debian0.35.0+20060710.1 Help i18n of RFC822 compliant conf ii libipc-run-perl0.82-1Perl module for running processes ii libparse-debianchangel 1.1.1-2 parse Debian changelogs and output ii libtimedate-perl 1.1600-9 Time and date functions for Perl ii liburi-perl1.37+dfsg-1 Manipulates and accesses URI strin ii man-db 2.5.5-1 on-line manual pager ii perl [libdigest-sha-pe 5.10.0-19 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction lintian recommends no packages. Versions of packages lintian suggests: pn binutils-multiarchnone (no description available) pn libtext-template-perl none (no description available) ii man-db2.5.5-1on-line manual pager -- no debconf information signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
lintian.debian.org
Hi, The lintian version running on lintian.debian.org is old. In sid we have 2.2.9, while the site runs 2.2.0. Should I file a bug (against lintian?) or can this easily be updated? With kind regards and keep up the good work. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#507526: lintian --color=always gives errors and does not show colors
Package: lintian Version: 2.1.0 Severity: minor Thanks When running lintian in a chroot with the --color=always option I get error messages and the errors/warnings are not shown in color. Without the color function it works fine. If lintian has no E/W to show the error messages do not appear. See for an example below. # lintian --allow-root --color=always lazarus_0.9.26-2.dsc Use of uninitialized value $_ in split at /usr/share/perl/5.10/Term/ANSIColor.pm line 121. Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/share/perl/5.10/Term/ANSIColor.pm line 187. W: lazarus source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff Makefile and 38 more # lintian --allow-root lazarus_0.9.26-2.dsc W: lazarus source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff Makefile and 38 more Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#478930: errors while using the check files under Ubuntu/Hardy
I am not sure if I am doing things with these files which I am not supposed to do (I use Ubuntu/Hardy lintian on my sid package), but I get the following output. It look to me that find errors are a bug? I put in one instance each file on a new line (with the first line empty after Files:, might that be the problem? And why do the checks try to execute the xpm file? The source of my package are available at [1]. [EMAIL PROTECTED] /var/cache/pbuilder/sid-i386/result $ lintian -I -i winff_0.42-2_i* W: winff source: debian-copyright-unknown-field packaged-by N: N: The package contains a copyright file that has an unknown field. N: W: winff source: debian-copyright-unknown-field packaged-date find: paths must precede expression Usage: find [-H] [-L] [-P] [path...] [expression] sh: debian/winff.xpm: Permission denied find: paths must precede expression Usage: find [-H] [-L] [-P] [path...] [expression] find: paths must precede expression Usage: find [-H] [-L] [-P] [path...] [expression] find: paths must precede expression Usage: find [-H] [-L] [-P] [path...] [expression] find: paths must precede expression Usage: find [-H] [-L] [-P] [path...] [expression] find: missing argument to `-path' sh: debian/winff.xpm: Permission denied [1] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/w/winff/ Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
