Bug#940994: lintian: changelog-file-missing-explicit-entry false positive for versions like flatpak_1.2.5-0+deb10u1

2019-09-24 Thread Felix Lechner
Control: tags -1 - moreinfo + pending Hi Simon, On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 8:50 AM Simon McVittie wrote: > > In my opinion: no Thank your pointing out this issue. Your fix was implemented in https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/commit/e8a5ad1d99e7a86294e65b82de7a46ec0e9c420e and

Bug#940994: lintian: changelog-file-missing-explicit-entry false positive for versions like flatpak_1.2.5-0+deb10u1

2019-09-23 Thread Simon McVittie
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 06:53:44 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:27 AM Simon McVittie wrote: > > > > To accommodate the 0+deb10u1 convention, I think there should be an > > exception to this tag, preventing it from being emitted for revision > > numbers that "are based on"

Bug#940994: lintian: changelog-file-missing-explicit-entry false positive for versions like flatpak_1.2.5-0+deb10u1

2019-09-23 Thread Felix Lechner
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo Hi Simon, On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:27 AM Simon McVittie wrote: > > To accommodate the 0+deb10u1 convention, I think there should be an > exception to this tag, preventing it from being emitted for revision > numbers that "are based on" revision 0. I struggled with

Bug#940994: lintian: changelog-file-missing-explicit-entry false positive for versions like flatpak_1.2.5-0+deb10u1

2019-09-23 Thread Simon McVittie
Package: lintian Version: 2.22.0 Severity: normal I'm currently preparing an upload of a new upstream stable-branch version of flatpak for buster (see #940818). It is a new upstream version released directly to the buster branch, not a backport or update of a pre-existing package with the same