Author: djpig
Date: 2006-01-02 10:10:47 +0100 (Mon, 02 Jan 2006)
New Revision: 532
Added:
trunk/testset/cdbs-test/
trunk/testset/cdbs-test/debian/
trunk/testset/cdbs-test/debian/changelog
trunk/testset/cdbs-test/debian/compat
trunk/testset/cdbs-test/debian/control
Author: djpig
Date: 2006-01-02 10:19:16 +0100 (Mon, 02 Jan 2006)
New Revision: 533
Modified:
trunk/checks/binaries
trunk/checks/changelog-file
trunk/checks/conffiles
trunk/checks/control-file
trunk/checks/control-files
trunk/checks/copyright-file
trunk/checks/deb-format
djpig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
+ $allowed{yada}++ if -e debfiles/packages;
+ my @packages = split /\s*,\s*/, $build_depends;
+ foreach my $pkg (@packages) {
+ my ($name) = ($pkg =~ /^(\S+)/);
+
I found a bug today in the unneeded-explicit-linking lintian test: I
was building a major new release of a package with several libraries in
it, and an old release was also installed on the system:
libfoo_x in the package contains a symbol foo_x_new_function
/usr/lib/libfoo_x.so.0 does not
tag 339829 + patch
usertag 339829 + sentpatch
thanks
I've attached a patch against lintian 1.23.14 that adds a check for the
correctness of the Homepage/webpage part of the package description. It
is by no means complete, but it is a reasonable check.
Basically it checks for one blank line, then
5 matches
Mail list logo