Bug#1019851: lintian: init.d-script-needs-depends-on-lsb-base is obsolete + wrong

Control: tag -1 + patch On Thu, 15 Sep 2022 00:25:44 +0200 Adam Borowski wrote: > Thus: please drop this tag soon. > > Then you could add a reverse tag, lsb-base-depends-is-obsolete, but > that's an aforemented 20 years cleanup that has no urgency. Now both done here:

Bug#1012432: lintian: improve explanation of package-name-doesnt-match-sonames to prevent SONAME bumps without changing the package name

Source: lintian Version: 2.114.0 Severity: normal X-Debbugs-Cc: jo...@debian.org Hi, currently, the explanation of package-name-doesnt-match-sonames reads: N: The package name of a library package should usually reflect the soname of the included N: library. The package name can determined

Bug#914271: lintian: Rationale behind hyphen-in-upstream-part-of-debian-changelog-version

Hi, Quoting Guillem Jover (2018-11-22 13:12:05) > > in your original commit you were talking about "some tools". > > > > This suggests that you know tools that behave wrongly. > > > > If you share the tools you know of, then we could file bugs. > > I think that would be difficult, I'm afraid

Bug#914271: lintian: Rationale behind hyphen-in-upstream-part-of-debian-changelog-version

Hi Felix, Quoting Felix Lechner (2018-11-21 15:52:02) > Well, I also agree with Josch's well-articulated argument. A merge > request to remove the tag is pending (!72). Thank you for bringing > this to our attention! in your original commit you were talking about "some tools". This suggests

Bug#865531: (no subject)

The long tag description of testsuite-autopkgtest-missing suggests that they have to simply add the field Testsuite:autopkgtest to debian/control and everything is fixed. But this is not the real fix. The real fix is to add a debian/tests/control *and* at least one test. I think the

Bug#846880: lintian: warn if B-D-A or B-D-I is used in sources without Arch:any or Arch:all packages, respectively

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.48 Severity: wishlist Hi, Using the Build-Depends-Arch header doesn't make sense if there are no Architecture:any packages in debian/control. Conversely, using Build-Depends-Indep doesn't make any sense if there are no Architecture:all packages. The situation where

Bug#839086: lintian: invalid-restriction-formula-in-build-profiles-field seems to be buggy

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2016-09-29 14:05:37) > * Ximin Luo , 2016-09-28, 19:53: > >$ lintian -i -I --pedantic --color auto > >../cysignals_1.1.1+ds-1_source.changes > >E: cysignals source: invalid-restriction-formula-in-build-profiles-field > > python-cysignals-pari > > >

Re: Is restriction-formula-with-versioned-dpkg-dev-conflict useful?

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2016-03-30 14:02:06) > Unless someone objects, I'm going to remove this tag, because it's confusing > and unlikely to detect any real problem... your reasoning makes sense. Please go ahead. cheers, josch signature.asc Description: signature

Bug#776068: lintian: please add more checks for missing dependencies

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.30+deb8u3 Severity: wishlist Hi, when going through the list of binary packages without dependencies: grep-dctrl \( --not -r -F Depends '.*' --and --not -r -F Pre-Depends '.*' \) -n -s Package /var/lib/apt/lists/*_debian_dists_sid_main_binary-*_Packages | sort -u

Bug#776068: lintian: please add more checks for missing dependencies

Hi, On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:05:27 +0100 Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de wrote: one can notice a large number of packages which probably (by their name) need an interpreter but do not depend on one: Niels Thykier noticed that my numbers include many .*-doc and .*-data packages. Here

Bug#776068: lintian: please add more checks for missing dependencies

Hi, Quoting Niels Thykier (2015-01-23 16:49:21) There are also some -common and -dev packages, which might not require the interpreter (e.g. for -dev, you probably want something like python-dev rather than python). To avoid too many false positives, we should probably at least start with

Bug#770068: lintian: check for XS-Testsuite header

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.30 Severity: normal Tags: patch Hi, dpkg allows the Testsuite header since 1.17.10, so Lintian should warn if packages still use the XS-Testsuite header. An unknown (because codesearch cannot display the number of found packages and I stopped clicking next after 10

Bug#763773: lintian: please implement support for the new build profile syntax

Hi, now the test suite runs without errors. Thanks! cheers, josch From d01a9ef5534cd683d01a6f3a74b027036a716bb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: josch j.scha...@email.de Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:16:58 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] implement new build profile syntax --- checks/control-file.desc

Bug#763773: lintian: please implement support for the new build profile syntax

Hi, I made the following changes to my last patch: - corrected the regular expression in Lintian::Relation::parse_element to also read in restriction formulas with more than one group - corrected the regular expression in Lintian::Relation::new_norestriction to not start reading in the

Bug#763773: lintian: please implement support for the new build profile syntax

Hi, Quoting Johannes Schauer (2014-10-03 06:28:37) Control: block -1 by 760158 763766 sorry, I forgot to mention something important: this bug can only be resolved once dpkg and debhelper with support for the new syntax are uploaded. The patch contains placeholders for those versions

Bug#763773: lintian: please implement support for the new build profile syntax

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.27 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch Dear lintian maintainers, the syntax for the Build-Profiles field was changed during the bootstrap sprint in paris [1,2]. I wanted to file my patch for lintian once dpkg with the new syntax was released but since that release did

Bug#763773: lintian: please implement support for the new build profile syntax

Control: block -1 by 760158 763766 sorry, I forgot to mention something important: this bug can only be resolved once dpkg and debhelper with support for the new syntax are uploaded. The patch contains placeholders for those versions. cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Bug#761125: lintian: false positive of wildcard-matches-nothing-in-dep5-copyright if Files field starts with whitespace

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.26 Severity: normal Tags: patch Hi, Consider the following paragraph of a copyright-format 1.0 file: Files: foo bar Copyright: xxx License: xxx Even if files foo and bar exist, this will emit wildcard-matches-nothing-in-dep5-copyright. The reason is, that the

Bug#757615: (no subject)

Hi, Quoting Emmanuel Bourg (2014-09-07 14:44:13) It looks like this new lintian check gives false positives when the License field contains or: License: CDDL or GPL-2 W: jenkins source: space-in-std-shortname-in-dep5-copyright cddl or gpl-2 (paragraph at line 99) this should be fixed

Bug#759101: please don't warn about having explicitly set M-A:no

Hi, I don't think it's a good idea to create a pedantic warning when a package declares Multi-Arch:no. Some packages just cannot technically be multiarched. Such a package should set Multi-Arch:no explicitly to indicate that the maintainer looked at the problem of multiarching their binary

Bug#758425: lintian: add a check for outdated version constraints

Hi, Quoting Raphael Hertzog (2014-08-29 21:16:06) If that is ever implemented, it must apply only on dependencies that can be parsed on the source's debian/control because I would not be happy to have warnings on library dependencies generated by dpkg-shlibdeps. How can it happen that library

Bug#758425: lintian: add a check for outdated version constraints

Hi, Quoting Raphael Hertzog (2014-08-29 22:17:43) When a library has a symbols file that has evolved over more than 2 releases (like libc6)... see /var/lib/dpkg/info/libc6:amd64.symbols it references versions as old as 2.2.5 when oldstable currently has 2.11. Right. compiling. The other is

Bug#758425: lintian: add a check for outdated version constraints

Hi, Quoting Raphael Hertzog (2014-08-29 23:42:42) I'd say yes but I don't know how you define the set of packages. How can lintian know if a package is a compiler? By carrying a list of packages that need translation when cross compiling. This also means that fixing this bug has to wait

Bug#758425: lintian: add a check for outdated version constraints

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.25 Severity: wishlist Hi, Lintian could check if any dependency on binary packages has an outdated version constraint. If the outdated version constraint is attached to an essential package, then the dependency can be dropped completely. This will then avoid useless

Bug#757583: patch fixing this issue

tag 757583 patch thanks Hi, please find attached a patch which fixes this issue. cheers, josch From a29c798e31977055c6c0b740f1e1bb0376709ff7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: josch j.scha...@email.de Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:13:04 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] warn if pipe symbol is used as an OR in

Bug#757551: lintian: check if DEP-5 debian/copyright covers all files in the unpacked sources

-in-dep5-copyright tag is. I do not see a case where this tag would be emitted but the wildcard-matches-nothing-in-dep5-copyright would not. cheers, josch From 57fd9978cf072d408d9a9fb8d9f58b12802f59ea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 12:00:39

Bug#757551: lintian: check if DEP-5 debian/copyright covers all files in the unpacked sources

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-08-10 09:41:31) * Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de, 2014-08-10, 09:28: I don't intend to work on improving the patch, but maybe somebody else will find it useful. that would be me :) Whoo! :-) awesome you kept that patch for two years :D If I recall

Bug#757551: lintian: check if DEP-5 debian/copyright covers all files in the unpacked sources

Quoting Johannes Schauer (2014-08-10 10:02:31) that's very useful and I added this as a test case. The updated patch is attached. and it would help to attach the right file... From 040fdbf1b96d1b6dcfa55c67c52e72b3a58ab8ce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de Date

Bug#757615: lintian: warn if a space is used in a DEP-5 license name

Hi, Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-08-09 23:28:08) Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de writes: More importantly for this bugreport: what constitutes a license name and how can one check that it is without spaces? I think you just need to strip off a trailing with exception exception before

Bug#757551: lintian: check if DEP-5 debian/copyright covers all files in the unpacked sources

the same way as a regex and thus do not need any more quoting. Thanks a lot for your review! The fixed version is attached :) cheers, josch From 26a4e2ffbd8ba13a038d33fe64630f4f44d30341 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 12:00:39 +0200 Subject

Bug#757671: lintian: allow to check whether known licenses in dep-5 debian/copyright are word-by-word the same

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.25 Severity: wishlist Hi, some known licenses supported by the copyright-format 1.0 [1] are not in /usr/share/common-licenses and thus have to be copy-pasted verbatim into debian/copyright. Since their name is well-defined in the spec, lintian could check whether

Bug#757551: lintian: check if DEP-5 debian/copyright covers all files in the unpacked sources

d8dba3633f6f539366b18cc64ce8c667d4324794 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 12:00:39 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] check whether the dep-5 debian/copyright wildcards match all files - based on patch by Jakub Wilk - thanks! --- checks/source-copyright.desc

Bug#757551: lintian: check if DEP-5 debian/copyright covers all files in the unpacked sources

-copyright-*; do debian/rules runtests onlyrun=`basename $d`; done to make sure that the relevant tests pass fixed patch attached. cheers, josch From 655f77d7f07ad17d3f9b045e27a818677c5a35f5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 12:00:39 +0200

Bug#757545: proposing a patch

tags 757545 patch thanks the attached patch attempts to fix this bug. It implements the license-text-too-short tag which is emitted for all licenses known by SPDX, which are not in /usr/share/common-licenses and which are less than half the size that they are supposed to be. I also used this

Bug#656801: i guess this is fixed in git

Hi, does this not fix this bug: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=lintian/lintian.git;a=commitdiff;h=558f3af5ed0b684575416f83f932ffbdf4c8da4e it should be part of the upcoming 2.5.26 release but debian/changelog misses a Closes: #656801 entry cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to

Bug#673533: this seems to be fixed in lintian 2.5.25 (and possibly earlier)

Hi, I'm running lintian 2.5.25 and it seems to perfectly report all paragraphs: Files: debian/d* Copyright: 2014, somebody2 License: foo Files: debian/e* Copyright: 2014, somebody2 License: bar W: test source: missing-license-paragraph-in-dep5-copyright bar (paragraph at line 6) W: test

Bug#757579: bug #757615 probably fixes this

Hi, all the examples with commas I found also use spaces, so probably if bug#757615 is fixed, then all instances that I found for this bug are already reported because of their wrong usage of spaces. cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a

Bug#757551: lintian: check if DEP-5 debian/copyright covers all files in the unpacked sources

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.25 Severity: wishlist Hi, it seems that lintian does not yet notice if a DEP-5 debian/copyright file misses specifying copyright information for some files in the unpacked sources. It would be nice if lintian could warn if debian/copyright misses to provide

Bug#757579: lintian: check usage of commas in dep-5 copyright

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.25 Severity: wishlist Hi, commas have a special meaning in the License field of a DEP-5 copyright file. In front of an and they signal that the preceding or has priority. Other uses of it are most likely illegal. Examples: License: Apache Software License, Version

Bug#757583: lintian: warn if the pipe symbol is used in a License value

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.25 Severity: wishlist Hi, there are plenty of occurrences where a pipe symbol (|) is used as an or in seemingly otherwise DEP5 compliant copyright files: http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=License%3A.*\|+path%3Adebian%2Fcopyright since the pipe symbol is not

Bug#757551: and while we are at it...

and while we are at it, also warn if the wildcards match a file in more than one stanza. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Bug#747248: cannot find a satisfying regex for this

Can this bug even be fixed in practice? I thought a bit about this bug and also investigated the list of copyright names supplied by Clint Adams (thank you, very useful!). I ended up with the impression that besides things like whitespaces in the license name (bug #757615), pipe symbol instead of

Bug#757615: lintian: warn if a space is used in a DEP-5 license name

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-08-09 22:25:39) That's not quite right. It would incorrectly complain about: License: GPL-2+ with OpenSSL exception this bit indeed confuses me in https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ On the one hand it says License names are

Bug#747248: cannot find a satisfying regex for this

Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-08-09 22:18:05) Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de writes: And some more invalid license names: \b-\b ~~ license-problem-undefined-license \bother\b ~~ license-problem-undefined-license \bunspecified\b ~~ license-problem-undefined

Bug#757615: lintian: warn if a space is used in a DEP-5 license name

Hi, Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-08-09 22:53:12) That's not a license name. It's a license name with an exception. The syntax for exceptions is: license with exception exception (In retrospect, we probably should have written ABNF for the fields.) but together, the original license

Bug#757551: and while we are at it...

Quoting Russ Allbery (2014-08-09 22:15:38) Johannes Schauer j.scha...@email.de writes: and while we are at it, also warn if the wildcards match a file in more than one stanza. That's common and explicitly permitted by the format. Last match wins. Multiple Files paragraphs

Bug#700970: how an affected stanza be identified and how would the right one look like?

Hi, Unfortunately, people often don't pay attention to those rules, and just paste upstream license text to d/copyright, adding single space in front of every line, and adding a dot to empty ones. This results in wrong formatting for many licenses, BSD ones being the most popular victims

Bug#743840: lintian: please change the profile name notest to nocheck

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.22 Severity: normal Hi, we changed the profile name notest to nocheck because Debian policy defines the value nocheck for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS. It is thus only logical to call the profile the same name to avoid confusion. The following diff implements the necessary

Bug#740607: lintian: Please support build-profiles

Hi, Quoting Niels Thykier (2014-03-04 22:51:12) Thanks for confirming my assertion. Sadly, I see I phrased myself poorly. You implemented what I said, but not what I wanted. What I meant was to remove the assignment to $d_restr completely. I.e. my ($d_pkg, $d_march, $d_version,

Bug#740607: lintian: Please support build-profiles

Hi, Quoting Jakub Wilk (2014-03-19 12:01:56) In that case, can you give me an example of a tag that checks debian/control? binary-control-field-duplicates-source thanks! That was very helpful :) please find attached a new patch with one more added tag. All three students forgot to add

Bug#740607: lintian: Please support build-profiles

Hi, Quoting Niels Thykier (2014-03-03 22:05:31) Thanks for looking into this. and thanks for responding so quickly :) +Tag: invalid-restriction-label-in-source-relation +Severity: important +Certainty: possible +Info: The restriction list in the source relation includes a term with +

Bug#740607: lintian: Please support build-profiles

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.22 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch Hi, I implemented a preliminary patch for lintian to understand and check the restriction syntax described in this document: https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec Please tell me what needs to be changed so that I can get this

Bug#740202: lintian: doesnt detect invalid arch in Build-Depends: foo, foo [blub]

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.22 Severity: normal Hi, as suggested by Niels Thykier on IRC I'm reporting the following issue: Given the line: Build-Depends: foo, foo [blub] lintian will not detect the invalid arch blub. Though it does find it if the line says: Build-Depends: