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:

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]

Bug#548640: lintian check for dpatch describtion could honnor DEP3 style description

Paul Gevers p...@climbing.nl writes: 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]