Bug#941762: lintian in Stretch backports contains leftover from merge
Package: lintian Version: 2.24.0~bpo9+2 Severity: serious thanks Hi Chris, the lintian version in Stretch backports seems to be broken: debian@devel:~/tmp/lintian$ grep -R "" lintian-2.24.0~bpo9+2/checks/fields.pm:<<< HEAD lintian-2.24.0~bpo9+2/checks/fields.pm:<<< HEAD lintian-2.24.0~bpo9+2/checks/fields.pm:<<< HEAD debian@devel:~/tmp/lintian$ grep -R "" lintian-2.24.0~bpo9+2/checks/fields.pm:>>> 2.22.0 lintian-2.24.0~bpo9+2/checks/fields.pm:>>> 2.24.0 lintian-2.24.0~bpo9+2/checks/fields.pm:>>> 2.24.0 Thorsten
Bug#903669: lintian -- false positive on using-first-person-in-description
Hi Chris, On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Chris Lamb wrote: The description of pyicloud contains the name of a software called "Find My iPhone". I think this is a case for an override rather than a change in Lintian as it will never be able to reliably know that this is a false positive without aintaining a list of project names like "Find My iPhone." aren't there lists for other lintian tags as well? For example where Rouge is the correct spelling that should not be replaced by Rogue, as mentioned in #891794? What do you think? I am always happy to see no output from lintian, so I would slightly prefer the solution with a list. But I also don't mind to add an override. It is your call :-). Thorsten
Bug#903669: lintian -- false positive on using-first-person-in-description
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.84 Severity: normal The description of pyicloud contains the name of a software called "Find My iPhone". So in this case "My" is not a using-first-person-in-description ... Thorsten
Bug#897915: lintian -- False positive on orphaned-package-not-maintained-in-debian-infrastructure
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.82~bpo9+1 Severity: normal git.dgit.debian.org seems to be within *.debian.org, so this looks like a false positive ... lintian check for python-ofxhome_0.3.3-2.dsc W: python-ofxhome source: orphaned-package-not-maintained-in-debian-infrastructure vcs-git https://git.dgit.debian.org/python-ofxhome Thorsten
Bug#895841: lintian -- False positive on spelling-error-in-binary
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.80 Severity: normal For osmo-trx 0.2.0 I get: I: osmo-trx: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/osmo-trx wIH with But there is no wIH in the source: debian@devel:~/move-to-salsa/mobcom/osmo-trx/osmo-trx-0.2.0$ grep -R wIH debian@devel:~/move-to-salsa/mobcom/osmo-trx/osmo-trx-0.2.0$ and: debian@devel:~/move-to-salsa/mobcom/osmo-trx/builder1$ LANG=C grep -R wIH Binary file tmp/usr/bin/osmo-trx matches debian@devel:~/move-to-salsa/mobcom/osmo-trx/builder1$ strings tmp/usr/bin/osmo-trx|grep wIH wIH) only garbage in the binary. So this seems to be a false positive. Thorsten
Bug#895758: lintian -- when is a patch a patch (HG)
Hi Chris, On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Chris Lamb wrote: I could have sworn that already not all files in the patch/ directory trigger such a message. But as I understand you right now, this is not the case yet. So I am fine with it ... Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. :) Can you rephrase? if I understand you right, this lintian warning will be triggered by any file that is in patches/ but has no corresponding entry in series. This is fine and I also don't need an exception for "my" *.patch_back. I filed this wishlist bug because I wrongly thought that there is some kind of whitelist for such not needed files. Does that make more sense? Thorsten
Bug#895758: lintian -- when is a patch a patch (HG)
Hi Chris, On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Chris Lamb wrote: This might be a language thing but I would not know what "patch back" would mean out of context. Indeed, even when I am pretty sure what you are trying to achieve (temporarily ignore a patch?) yes, thats what I wanted. I could have sworn that already not all files in the patch/ directory trigger such a message. But as I understand you right now, this is not the case yet. So I am fine with it ... Thorsten
Bug#895758: lintian -- when is a patch a patch (HG)
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.80 Severity: wishlist My outreachy mentee renamed an old patch to: 02_set_version_explicitly.patch_back lintian complained about that with: W: libosmo-sccp source: patch-file-present-but-not-mentioned-in-series 02_set_version_explicitly.patch_back I would like to suggest that such a name will be ignored as valid filename for a patch (maybe a list of "valid" names can appear on lintian.d.o). Thorsten
Bug#891794: lintian -- False positive on spelling-error-in-binary
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.67
Severity: normal
A soon to be available package gives:
I: osmocom-analog: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/amps Rouge Rogue
This is a false positive as it comes from:
osmocom-analog-0.0.1/src/amps/stations.c: { 85, 0, "Baton Rouge", "LA",
"Cellular One", "504 291 9703", "GTEDS" },
osmocom-analog-0.0.1/src/amps/stations.c: { 106, 0, "Baton Rouge", "LA",
"Bell South Mobile","800 351 2400", "GTEDS" },
Thorsten
Bug#890943: lintian -- False positive on license-problem-non-free-img-lenna
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.67 Severity: normal According to the maintainer of libplacebo this is false positive. md5sum :0ea16a2c4b94f0c1a83d11278655ac9f ./libplacebo-0.4.0/demos/lena.jpg sha1sum :14045bb11fbccdfa9a522cf74ced9385f02307d8 ./libplacebo-0.4.0/demos/lena.jpg sha256sum:89516f606fb22935d6605965dd0c96cb8275d9e57ae3dde8931a2b328f7cdd7e ./libplacebo-0.4.0/demos/lena.jpg Thorsten
Bug#889154: maintainer-script-should-not-use-service, long description
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.72 Severity: wishlist Please extend the long description of maintainer-script-should-not-use-service Especially it is not clear what to do in case a package changes the config of another package and would like to reload the config during installation. For example this is needed after a new apache config has been added. Thorsten
Bug#873323: lintian -- False positives on copyright-year-in-future
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.52 Severity: normal The license of package oysttyer contains an example, which gives a false positive for "copyright-year-in-future": * If you choose to create and distribute a derivative work based on this package, your derivative work must clearly make reference to this package, any other packages your work or the original work might be based on, and all applicable copyrights, either in your documentation, your work's standard human-readable output, or both. A suggested method might be Contains or is based on the Foo software package. Copyright (C) 2112 D. Original Author. All rights reserved. http://their.web.site.invalid/ Thorsten
Bug#749542: false positive: E: scheme48 source: license-problem-non-free-RFC debian/copyright
Hi Niels, On Sun, 22 Jun 2014, Niels Thykier wrote: AFAICT this license explicitly forbids modification and therefore fails to meet the DFSG ยง3. If you disagree with our assertion, then I recommend we pass it by the FTP masters, who are the authority on this. Should they disagree with our assertion as well, we will amend the check. a similar discussion for another scheme package has happened some time ago[1]. As the licenses of these SRFI and scm files have been changed meanwhile, the mentioned entry of the FAQ is no longer available on the given link to the website. But you can find the old version in the internet archive[2]. According to the FAQ, the SRFI X is the standard that is used to develop the srfi-X.scm. So the standard must not be changed but you can do whatever you like with the implementation (which is actually distributed). I agree that the wording is strange but given that extra explanation of the FAQ I would accept such a package nowadays. As I might be biased, if you insist I will ask the other members of the FTP team about their opinion. Anyway, as I need to adapt debian/copyright to current licenses, I think the problem will go away on its own and you might not need to add an exception for this special case ... Thorsten [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/12/msg00326.html [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20031204204933/http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-faq.html
Bug#749542: false positive: E: scheme48 source: license-problem-non-free-RFC debian/copyright
Package: lintian Severity: normal User: alteh...@debian.org thanks Dear Maintainer, I am very sure that I did not put any RFC into debian/copyright of the scheme48 package. So I am afraid this error is a false positive. Thanks! Thorsten -- 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/alpine.deb.2.02.1405272238530.25...@jupiter.server.alteholz.net
Bug#746656: privacy-breach-generic false positive on LINK rel=Bookmark ..:
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.22.1 Severity: normal As already mentioned in #736992 something like: LINK rel=Bookmark title=Ab Initio Physics Home Page href=http://ab-initio.it.edu; doesn't seem to be any privacy breach ... Thorsten -- 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/alpine.deb.2.02.1405021333090.8...@jupiter.server.alteholz.net
Bug#677142: lintian: [checks/init.d] + should be allowed as part of package name
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.8 Severity: important Tags: patch While checking for duplicate-updaterc.d-calls-in-postinst the character + is not allowed as a valid name of the package. Attached is a patch to solve this problem but I guess that it might occur somewhere else. Thorsten -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.22-6.1 ii bzip2 1.0.6-2 ii diffstat 1.55-3 ii file 5.11-1 ii gettext0.18.1.1-8 ii hardening-includes 2.1 ii intltool-debian0.35.0+20060710.1 ii libapt-pkg-perl0.1.26+b1 ii libc-bin 2.13-33 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 locales2.13-33 ii man-db 2.6.1-2 ii patchutils 0.3.2-1.1 ii perl [libdigest-sha-perl] 5.14.2-11 ii unzip 6.0-6 lintian recommends no packages. Versions of packages lintian suggests: pn binutils-multiarch none ii dpkg-dev 1.16.3 ii libhtml-parser-perl3.69-2 pn libtext-template-perl none ii man-db 2.6.1-2 ii xz-utils 5.1.1alpha+20110809-3 -- no debconf information --- init.d.org 2012-06-11 22:22:29.0 +0200 +++ init.d 2012-06-11 22:22:11.0 +0200 @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ my %conffiles; my $opts_r = qr/-\S+\s*/; -my $name_r = qr/[\w.-]+/; +my $name_r = qr/[\w.\+-]+/; my $action_r = qr/\w+/; my $exclude_r = qr/if\s+\[\s+-x\s+\S*update-rc\.d/;
Bug#632669: lintian: no detection of shell-script-fails-syntax-check
Package: lintian Version: 2.5.1 Severity: normal Hi, assuming that there is a python package containing some ksh-scripts which are started from the python scripts (please don't ask for the purpose of this, it is an example from real life). The Build-Depends: of the source packages does not need to contain 'ksh', but only the Depends:-line of the binary package. If I build the package on a system without ksh installed, I get no output from lintian. After I install ksh, the same package produces lots of errors like 'shell-script-fails-syntax-check', which is ok. I admit that it is difficult to make any syntax checks without being able to use the needed shell. But could it be possible to print at least some warning that it is not possible to do this check? Thorsten -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=de_DE@euro, LC_CTYPE=de_DE@euro (charmap=ISO-8859-15) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages lintian depends on: ii binutils 2.21.52.20110606-2 The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii bzip2 1.0.5-6high-quality block-sorting file co ii diffstat 1.54-1 produces graph of changes introduc ii file 5.04-5+b1 Determines file type using magic ii gettext 0.18.1.1-3 GNU Internationalization utilities ii intltool-debian 0.35.0+20060710.1 Help i18n of RFC822 compliant conf ii libapt-pkg-perl 0.1.24+b2 Perl interface to libapt-pkg ii libclass-accessor-per 0.34-1 Perl module that automatically gen ii libdpkg-perl 1.16.0.3 Dpkg perl modules ii libemail-valid-perl 0.184-1Perl module for checking the valid ii libipc-run-perl 0.89-1 Perl module for running processes ii libparse-debianchange 1.2.0-1parse Debian changelogs and output ii libtimedate-perl 1.2000-1 collection of modules to manipulat ii liburi-perl 1.58-1 module to manipulate and access UR ii locales 2.13-8 Embedded GNU C Library: National L ii man-db2.6.0.2-1 on-line manual pager ii perl [libdigest-sha-p 5.12.4-1 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction ii unzip 6.0-5 De-archiver for .zip files lintian recommends no packages. Versions of packages lintian suggests: pn binutils-multiarchnone (no description available) ii dpkg-dev 1.16.0.3 Debian package development tools ii libhtml-parser-perl 3.68-1+b1 collection of modules that parse H pn libtext-template-perl none (no description available) ii man-db2.6.0.2-1 on-line manual pager ii xz-utils 5.0.0-2XZ-format compression utilities -- no debconf information -- 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/pine.lnx.4.64.1107041919410.12...@tor.gallien.in-chemnitz.de
