On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 01:11:17 +0530, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Gregor & Daniel,
>
> > If I'm reading this correctly, this still produces hundreds of
> > false positives for pkg-perl alone. Some examples:
> Should be all done, many thanks:
>
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/comm
Hi Gregor & Daniel,
> If I'm reading this correctly, this still produces hundreds of
> false positives for pkg-perl alone. Some examples:
[…]
> s/Disbled/Disabled/
>
> Also, maybe mention in the description that invocations of dh_auto_test
> themselves are exempt?
Should be all done, many thanks
On Tue 2018-02-06 23:29:57 +0530, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Okay, let's give it another go :) Here we go:
>
>
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=44b7f754de9c8380c08ca7ffe9c2902ea47ad99b
thanks!
s/Disbled/Disabled/
Also, maybe mention in the description that invocations
On Tue, 06 Feb 2018 23:29:57 +0530, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Okay, let's give it another go :) Here we go:
>
>
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=44b7f754de9c8380c08ca7ffe9c2902ea47ad99b
If I'm reading this correctly, this still produces hundreds of
false positives fo
tags 889592 + pending
thanks
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Seems a shame to lose a bunch of good catches if we can prune down the
> false-positives. And even if this ends up missing some true positives,
> it would be a net win to catch the packages that *do* fail to check
> DEB_BUILD_PROFILES.
O
don't forget, the tag could also be marked as experimental, which is
thought exactly to help out developing of the tags with high chances of
fpos.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:48 AM Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Mon 2018-02-05 04:38:14 +0530, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > tags 889592 + pending
> > thanks
On Mon 2018-02-05 04:38:14 +0530, Chris Lamb wrote:
> tags 889592 + pending
> thanks
>
> "Fixed" in Git, pending upload:
>
>
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=293c897ef968e0f50ac4f48986034aeda57e179d
>
> Ah well, just too many false-positive cases.. I mean, we'd hav
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 00:10:21 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> > Very quick visual check: All I've seen use dh_auto_test, either with
> > some variables or with some actions before or after.
> If there are actions before or after dh_auto_test then it may still be
> "unsafe":
Yes, they may, or they
tags 889592 + pending
thanks
"Fixed" in Git, pending upload:
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=293c897ef968e0f50ac4f48986034aeda57e179d
Ah well, just too many false-positive cases.. I mean, we'd have to start
ignoring ": " comments, as well as detecting the differe
On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 12:03:56AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> % grep override_dh_auto_test */debian/rules | wc -l
> 321
>
> Very quick visual check: All I've seen use dh_auto_test, either with
> some variables or with some actions before or after.
If there are actions before or after dh_auto
On Sun, 04 Feb 2018 21:29:23 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/a/autoconf-dickey/rules-2.52%2B20170501-2
> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/a/avro-c/rules-1.8.2-1
> Not sure why this is matched, I thought it wouldn't have been:
> |override_dh
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.73
On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 03:36:45PM +0530, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Some results coming in:
>
>
> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/override_dh_auto_test-does-not-check-DEB_BUILD_PROFILES.html
>
> Thoughts?
Randomly checked few packages and they were mostly all fpos:
12 matches
Mail list logo