On 2015-08-30 21:49, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [...]
>
> But where to make the cut? Just because a regexp uses "(?!…)"? Surely
> not! Or because it is too long? Doesn't sound like a valid reason
> either.
>
Personally, I would like to see fewer regexs myself. Not because we use
weird
On Mon, August 31, 2015 07:46, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2015-08-30 20:28, Axel Beckert wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Niels Thykier wrote:
Moreover minified js is a security risk so removing tag is not really
an option
>>>
>>> The bug is not about removing the tag, it is about the amount of times
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:04:37PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> Could you restest now ? Normally it is fixed
The last mail I sent to the BTS included a failure log from
2.5.36.1 which is the last uploaded version. Could you confirm what
you would like me to retest (I couldn't see anything
On 2015-08-31 19:16, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:04:37PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>> Could you restest now ? Normally it is fixed
>
> The last mail I sent to the BTS included a failure log from
> 2.5.36.1 which is the last uploaded version. Could you confirm what
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 07:29:46PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> On 2015-08-31 19:16, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 06:04:37PM +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> >> Could you restest now ? Normally it is fixed
> >
> > The last mail I sent to the BTS included a failure log
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 788926 + pending
Bug #788926 [src:lintian] lintian: FTBFS with perl 5.22: test failures/regex
deprecation warnings
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #788926 to the same tags previously set
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please
Source: lintian
Version: 2.5.36.1
Severity: important
User: debian-p...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: perl-5.22-transition makemaker-prefix
Tags: sid stretch
This package FTBFS with perl 5.22.0-2, which removed support for a long-
obsolete way of overriding PREFIX when calling 'make install' with
Hi again, Jakub,
Am Montag, den 31.08.2015, 12:09 +0200 schrieb Jakub Wilk:
> Python used to be the classic example:
> "python" was an arch:all meta-package that depended on "python2.X".
> But if a Python module depended on "python", it was because it needed a
> Python interpreter of the same
* Niels Thykier , 2015-08-31, 07:39:
I would have no idea what this tag is about if I didn't look at the
code. It triggers when the package include files in
/var/cache/pbuilder/build/ or /var/lib/sbuild/ or /var/lib/buildd/.
But... how could it even happen that you ship
Hi Niels,
Niels Thykier wrote:
> > Anyway: I think we should _generally_ improve the situation and not
> > duplicating functionality for a single tag.
>
> Flip-side: There is no much gain in it for us to have 20 distinct
> "foo-installs-bar" tags when 1 could do. It is certainly a trade-off
>
Hi Fabian!
* Fabian Greffrath , 2015-08-28, 13:46:
Not every "Architecture: all" package can be marked as "Multi-Arch:
foreign". Otherwise, we could just teach dpkg and APT to treat all
arch:all packages as if they were ma:foreign and be done with it. :)
could you please
* Niels Thykier , 2015-08-31, 12:55:
lindsay.d.o:/srv/lintian.debian.org/history/tags/.dat
Aren't those all false positives from #720910?
I'm still curious to know how could it happen.
I do not remember how or what happened. I can trace the tag back to
#678857, which
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.36.1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
X-Debbugs-CC: 797...@bugs.debian.org
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 01:17:36PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Niels Thykier , 2015-08-31, 12:55:
> >lindsay.d.o:/srv/lintian.debian.org/history/tags/.dat
>
> Aren't those
On 2015-08-31 11:12, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Niels Thykier , 2015-08-31, 07:39:
>>> I would have no idea what this tag is about if I didn't look at the
>>> code. It triggers when the package include files in
>>> /var/cache/pbuilder/build/ or /var/lib/sbuild/ or /var/lib/buildd/.
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.36.1
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
Hi,
Patch attached that corrects grammar in the
maintainer-script-should-not-use-adduser-system-without-home tag.
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.36.1
Hi,
There is a false positive in the
"maintainer-script-should-not-use-adduser-system-without-home" tag if
the --system argument comes after --home.
Whilst the adduser manpage suggests this wouldn't work, adduser will
happily accept it. For example:
Processing control commands:
> forcemerge 797395 -1
Bug #797395 [lintian]
[maintainer-script-should-not-use-adduser-system-without-home] false positivies
Bug #797556 [lintian] lintian: False positive in
maintainer-script-should-not-use-adduser-system-without-home if --system comes
after --home
Control: forcemerge 797395 -1
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 04:03:44PM +0200, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.5.36.1
>
> Hi,
>
> There is a false positive in the
> "maintainer-script-should-not-use-adduser-system-without-home" tag if
> the --system argument comes after --home.
>
>
18 matches
Mail list logo