Bug#382327: Please don't consider UNRELEASED an invalid distro
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 07:49:18PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: We have a request to tell lintian to not reject UNRELEASED as a distribution so that testing packages not yet ready for upload can be checked with lintian with an expectation of no errors. However, I don't really want to do this until there's another check that will catch UNRELEASED before uploading it to be rejected by dak. Could you add support to dput and dupload to see if the Distribution in the *.changes file is set to UNRELEASED and reject the upload if so? After that's done, we'll make the change to lintian. dput was fixed in January 2008 and for dupload a NMU (by me) is in the DELAYED queue. So I guess we can queue the fix for this bug for the next upload. Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#382327: Please don't consider UNRELEASED an invalid distro
clone 382327 -1 -2 retitle -1 dput: please check for Distribution: UNRELEASED before upload retitle -2 dupload: please check for Distribution: UNRELEASED before upload reassign -1 dput reassign -2 dupload block 382327 -1 -2 thanks Hello, dput and dupload maintainers, We have a request to tell lintian to not reject UNRELEASED as a distribution so that testing packages not yet ready for upload can be checked with lintian with an expectation of no errors. However, I don't really want to do this until there's another check that will catch UNRELEASED before uploading it to be rejected by dak. Could you add support to dput and dupload to see if the Distribution in the *.changes file is set to UNRELEASED and reject the upload if so? After that's done, we'll make the change to lintian. Thanks! -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#382327: Please don't consider UNRELEASED an invalid distro
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: clone 382327 -1 -2 Bug#382327: Please don't consider UNRELEASED an invalid distro Bug 382327 cloned as bugs 384702-384703. retitle -1 dput: please check for Distribution: UNRELEASED before upload Bug#384702: Please don't consider UNRELEASED an invalid distro Changed Bug title. retitle -2 dupload: please check for Distribution: UNRELEASED before upload Bug#384703: Please don't consider UNRELEASED an invalid distro Changed Bug title. reassign -1 dput Bug#384702: dput: please check for Distribution: UNRELEASED before upload Bug reassigned from package `lintian' to `dput'. reassign -2 dupload Bug#384703: dupload: please check for Distribution: UNRELEASED before upload Bug reassigned from package `lintian' to `dupload'. block 382327 -1 -2 Unknown command or malformed arguments to command. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#382327: Please don't consider UNRELEASED an invalid distro
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.19.0549 +0100]: I have a sneaking suspicion that if we do recognize it, we'll immediately get a request from someone to stop recognizing it since they were using lintian to remind themselves to change the distribution before uploading. Makes me think we should have dput/dupload check. That sounds like a good idea to me. Should I clone this bug against those packages? I'd rather see them pick up that check before lintian drops its. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#382327: Please don't consider UNRELEASED an invalid distro
also sprach Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.08.19.0549 +0100]: I have a sneaking suspicion that if we do recognize it, we'll immediately get a request from someone to stop recognizing it since they were using lintian to remind themselves to change the distribution before uploading. Makes me think we should have dput/dupload check. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Bug#382327: Please don't consider UNRELEASED an invalid distro
martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Package: lintian Version: 1.23.22 Severity: wishlist E: mdadm_2.5.3-1~unreleased.3_i386.changes: bad-distribution-in-changes-file UNRELEASED I think it would be better not to flag this as an error. UNRELEASED is a commonly used name in changelogs during testing and it's refused by dak anyhow. If lintian reports an error, it's impossible to get error-free lintian runs during testing, which may lead maintainers to ignore lintian altogether (or miss other things in skim mode). I'm not completely sure about this one, since it *isn't* a valid distribution (that is, in fact, the entire point of using it). dak automatically rejecting it is a persuasive argument, though, and I suppose most other archive maintenance tools would do the same. That means I have a hard time seeing what damage could be caused by lintian recognizing it, other than maybe a wasted upload. I have a sneaking suspicion that if we do recognize it, we'll immediately get a request from someone to stop recognizing it since they were using lintian to remind themselves to change the distribution before uploading. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#382327: Please don't consider UNRELEASED an invalid distro
Package: lintian Version: 1.23.22 Severity: wishlist E: mdadm_2.5.3-1~unreleased.3_i386.changes: bad-distribution-in-changes-file UNRELEASED I think it would be better not to flag this as an error. UNRELEASED is a commonly used name in changelogs during testing and it's refused by dak anyhow. If lintian reports an error, it's impossible to get error-free lintian runs during testing, which may lead maintainers to ignore lintian altogether (or miss other things in skim mode). -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
