Jenkins build is back to normal : lintian-tests_sid #2890

See

Build failed in Jenkins: lintian-tests_sid #2889

See Changes: [lamby] Emit an error when a package bumps the epoch but the upstream version -- [...truncated 237.74 KB...] Adding debian:Certinomis_-_Root_CA.pem Adding

Processed: Re: Bug#898136: lintian: Reduce depends-on-mail-transport-agent-without-alternatives to pedantic

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 898136 + moreinfo Bug #898136 [lintian] lintian: Reduce depends-on-mail-transport-agent-without-alternatives to pedantic Added tag(s) moreinfo. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 898136:

Bug#898136: lintian: Reduce depends-on-mail-transport-agent-without-alternatives to pedantic

tags 898136 + moreinfo thanks Hi Russ, > I just now checked, and the packages currently diagnosed with this tag [1] > are 100% false positives, which makes me wonder if this tag should just be > deleted. Always possible. Let's let pabs chime in; tagging as moreinfo for now... :) Regards, --

Processed: Re: Bug#889816: lintian: Complain when epoch has been bumped but upstream version did not go backwards

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 889816 + pending Bug #889816 [lintian] lintian: Complain when epoch has been bumped but upstream version did not go backwards Added tag(s) pending. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 889816:

Bug#889816: lintian: Complain when epoch has been bumped but upstream version did not go backwards

tags 889816 + pending thanks Hi Raphael, > > "W: latest-debian-changelog-entry-without-new-version" > > > > Do you think it's still worth adding (essentially) an "E:" version > > of this? I would tend to be in favour, given that at least I did not > > see this warning when uploading "that"

Bug#898136: lintian: Reduce depends-on-mail-transport-agent-without-alternatives to pedantic

Chris Lamb writes: > Just to confirm; it currently it reports for all packages that provide > mail-transport-agent, ie: > citadel-server > courier-mta > dma > esmtp-run > exim4 > exim4-daemon-heavy > exim4-daemon-light > masqmail > msmtp-mta > nullmailer >

Bug#898136: lintian: Reduce depends-on-mail-transport-agent-without-alternatives to pedantic

Hi Scott. > Limiting it to packages that depend on exim4 would address all the false > positives I saw (since I mostly know about postfix stuff). Just to confirm; it currently it reports for all packages that provide mail-transport-agent, ie: citadel-server courier-mta dma esmtp-run

Bug#889816: lintian: Complain when epoch has been bumped but upstream version did not go backwards

Hi Chris, On Mon, 07 May 2018, Chris Lamb wrote: > I've just implemented this, but I notice that it overlaps with > > "W: latest-debian-changelog-entry-without-new-version" > > Do you think it's still worth adding (essentially) an "E:" version > of this? I would tend to be in favour, given

Bug#898136: lintian: Reduce depends-on-mail-transport-agent-without-alternatives to pedantic

On Monday, May 07, 2018 01:35:30 PM Russ Allbery wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes: > > Package: lintian > > Version: 2.5.85 > > Severity: normal > > > > Also, please reduce the certainty from certain. It's not. > > > > I'd just noticed

Bug#898136: lintian: Reduce depends-on-mail-transport-agent-without-alternatives to pedantic

Scott Kitterman writes: > Package: lintian > Version: 2.5.85 > Severity: normal > Also, please reduce the certainty from certain. It's not. > I'd just noticed depends-on-mail-transport-agent-without-alternatives. > I mainain approximately 10% of the packages affected by

Bug#898136: lintian: Reduce depends-on-mail-transport-agent-without-alternatives to pedantic

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.85 Severity: normal Also, please reduce the certainty from certain. It's not. I'd just noticed depends-on-mail-transport-agent-without-alternatives. I mainain approximately 10% of the packages affected by the check (3 of 33) and in all those cases the check is

Bug#889816: lintian: Complain when epoch has been bumped but upstream version did not go backwards

Hi Raphael Hertzog, I've just implemented this, but I notice that it overlaps with "W: latest-debian-changelog-entry-without-new-version" Do you think it's still worth adding (essentially) an "E:" version of this? I would tend to be in favour, given that at least I did not see this warning

Bug#889816: lintian: Complain when epoch has been bumped but upstream version did not go backwards

Dear Raphael, > Bad: > > python-django (2:2.0-1) experimental; urgency=medium > > * New upstream stable release. > https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.0/releases/2.0/ > > -- Chris Lamb Sat, 02 Dec 2017 18:36:33 + > > python-django (1:2.0~rc1-1) experimental;

Bug#889816: lintian: Complain when epoch has been bumped but upstream version did not go backwards

On Fri, 04 May 2018, Chris Lamb wrote: > Could you provide some concrete "good" and "bad" cases? I'm pretty > sure I know what you're after here but want to be 100% certain, > especially if we want this to be an "error". :) Good (in the context of this lintian tag, though I would have used