Hello Chris,
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 06:56:10PM +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> > Simply *why* is this error added?
>
> I added this Lintian check after #838966 was filed against one of my
> packages.
[...]
Thanks for providing this background info.
Though I have to say this only ma
Hi Andreas,
> Simply *why* is this error added?
I added this Lintian check after #838966 was filed against one of my
packages.
I did not add it as part of a plan to remove lsb-base, so alas I cannot
comment on the rest of your email. Apologies if you spent some time
crafting those portions.
>
Le vendredi, 14 octobre 2016, 22.57:13 h CEST Jakub Wilk a écrit :
> * Vincent Bernat , 2016-10-11, 08:44:
> >We put 3.0-6, then we have to update to 3.2-14 for status_proc. Then we
> >discover there may be people with backports so we update to 3.2-14~. This
> >makes a lot of people in Debian work
* Vincent Bernat , 2016-10-11, 08:44:
We put 3.0-6, then we have to update to 3.2-14 for status_proc. Then we
discover there may be people with backports so we update to 3.2-14~. This
makes a lot of people in Debian work for people that do not exist (those with
distributions older than oldoldst
Am 13.10.2016 um 12:26 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> I would prefer having the version requirement dropped as well. It seem
> rather pointless when even oldstable has a newer version.
>
> Aside from this issue: Should we handle packages differently which ship
> native systemd service files?
> You might
On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 08:44:57 +0200 Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ⦠8 octobre 2016 13:05 CEST, Evgeni Golov  :
>
> >> > > But all-in-all, what matters is the dependency, as there were no
> >> > > changes
> >> > > since 2013 (4.1+Debian10), and Jessie has 4.1+Debian13.
> >> >
> >> > Just to be cle
❦ 8 octobre 2016 13:05 CEST, Evgeni Golov :
>> > > But all-in-all, what matters is the dependency, as there were no changes
>> > > since 2013 (4.1+Debian10), and Jessie has 4.1+Debian13.
>> >
>> > Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the version part should be
>> > dropped?
>>
>> It's a
Ohai,
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 10:23:58PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le mercredi, 5 octobre 2016, 20.08:31 h CEST Chris Lamb a écrit :
> > Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > > But all-in-all, what matters is the dependency, as there were no changes
> > > since 2013 (4.1+Debian10), and Jessie
Le mercredi, 5 octobre 2016, 20.08:31 h CEST Chris Lamb a écrit :
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > But all-in-all, what matters is the dependency, as there were no changes
> > since 2013 (4.1+Debian10), and Jessie has 4.1+Debian13.
>
> Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the version part sh
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> There are more precise checks that could also be done; such as:
> - any use of status_of_proc from /lib/lsb/init-functions needs lsb-base (>=
> 3.2-14~)
Filed as Bug#839861: lintian: init.d-script-needs-depends-on-lsb-base does
not use strict enough lsb-base versi
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> But all-in-all, what matters is the dependency, as there were no changes
> since
> 2013 (4.1+Debian10), and Jessie has 4.1+Debian13.
Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the version part should be
dropped?
I've seen other bits of Deban be really rather "picky
Le mardi, 27 septembre 2016, 15.29:00 h CEST Chris Lamb a écrit :
> Package: lintian
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi,
>
> Attached is the following:
>
> commit 288035a951de277d0248ce28c561fbf7f8646839
> Author: Chris Lamb
> Date: Tue Sep 27 16:28:04 2016 +0200
>
> check
Hi Niels,
Thanks again for the review.
> Apologies, I had assumed you had run the test suite, so it turns out
> there are a few more remarks.
Mea culpa. As an "excuse" I had received your previous instructions on the
the testsuite, perlcritic, etc. but after I had written this patch… but I
shoul
Chris Lamb:
> Dear Niels,
>
> Thanks for the review.
>
You are welcome :)
Apologies, I had assumed you had run the test suite, so it turns out
there are a few more remarks.
* There are test failures with the patch (presumably the tests needs
updating).
- At least init.d-* and legacy-scr
Dear Niels,
Thanks for the review.
> Please shorten the synopsis and move the more length part into the
> description.
Done…
> Please create a non-legacy test case for new tags. A long term goal is
> to remove all the t/tests/legacy-* tests.
… and done. Good to know :)
Updated patch attach
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:29:00 +0100 Chris Lamb wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi,
>
> Attached is the following:
>
Hi,
Thanks for the patch.
It looks good and I only got two comments! :)
> commit 288035a951de277d0248ce28c561fbf7f8646839
> Author: Chris L
Package: lintian
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi,
Attached is the following:
commit 288035a951de277d0248ce28c561fbf7f8646839
Author: Chris Lamb
Date: Tue Sep 27 16:28:04 2016 +0200
checks/init.d: Check for initscripts that source /lib/lsb/init-functions
without declaring the
17 matches
Mail list logo