Hi Guillem,
> > Or perhaps not emit this tag for "local" packages (via the
> > versioning scheme?)
>
> I'm not sure there's any reliable way to distinguish those? I think
> most people even tend to use the defaul target distribution from dch,
> and use normal looking versions for local packages.
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:16:56 +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > The problem with emitting this tag unconditionally, even within the
> > Debian-vendor realm, is that people create local packages for their
> > own, or for $work, etc.
>
> Hmm. Emitting such a tag here still seems right to me, or at
Hi Guillem,
> The problem with emitting this tag unconditionally, even within the
> Debian-vendor realm, is that people create local packages for their
> own, or for $work, etc.
Hmm. Emitting such a tag here still seems right to me, or at least
when balanced with the downsides. The local package
Hi!
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:41:19 +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > So, I'd appreciate very much to see this tag emitted exclusively when
> > running lintian on lintian.d.o and Debian's ftp-master […] but not when
> > running locally
> Whilst I have not seen Ubuntu folks complain about this tag
tags 922531 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi Guillem,
> As the maintainer of dpkg, I [..]
I note your dislike of the decision that was reached by the CTTE in
#904302. I will pass no comment on it either way.
> So, I'd appreciate very much to see this tag emitted exclusively when
> running lintian on
Package: lintian
Version: 2.7.0
Severity: wishlist
Hi!
As the maintainer of dpkg, I do not agree at all (well I'd go as far as
to consider them to be just bogus :) with the rationale and conclusions
that were arrived to get the package-uses-vendor-specific-patch-series
tag implemented.
But the
6 matches
Mail list logo
