Unlimited FREE Job Postings and Resume Search @ JobsFlex.com

2008-01-31 Thread JobsFlex.com (Corporate)
Dear HR Manager, JobsFlex.com is one of Singapore's fastest growing Job Search portals, answering your challenging recruitment needs. We have Qualified Candidates from our Resume Database! As a Corporate Partner with Jobsflex.com, you will enjoy the following exclusive premiums: * Unlimited

Bug#463474: lintian: Please check doc-base Section field for allowed values

2008-01-31 Thread Kevin B. McCarty
Package: lintian Version: 1.23.42 Severity: wishlist Hi lintian maintainers, According to the instructions shipped with the doc-base package, file /usr/share/doc/doc-base/doc-base.txt.gz , paragraph 2.3.2.1, the Section field in a doc-base file should use the Debian menu sections:

Bug#463476: checkbashisms: fails to detect shell wrappers

2008-01-31 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Package: lintian Version: 1.23.42 Tags: patch X-Debbugs-Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 10:30 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This sounds more like a report against checkbashisms. I guess it could try to detect these: See

Re: List of packages shipping shell scripts with bashisms + MBF proposal

2008-01-31 Thread Adam D. Barratt
Hi, On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 12:12 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Adam D. Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: lintian's parsing code certainly sounds better (mainly because checkbashisms is based on an old version of the lintian code) but, from a quick look, checkbashisms flags more issues than

Processed: retitle 463476 to [checks/scripts] script_is_evil_and_wrong() could catch more scripts

2008-01-31 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13 retitle 463476 [checks/scripts] script_is_evil_and_wrong() could catch more scripts Bug#463476: checkbashisms: fails to detect shell wrappers Changed Bug title to `[checks/scripts]

Bug#463474: lintian: Please check doc-base Section field for allowed values

2008-01-31 Thread Russ Allbery
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: According to the instructions shipped with the doc-base package, file /usr/share/doc/doc-base/doc-base.txt.gz , paragraph 2.3.2.1, the Section field in a doc-base file should use the Debian menu sections: _Section_ Section where the

Bug#463474: lintian: Please check doc-base Section field for allowed values

2008-01-31 Thread Kevin B. McCarty
Russ Allbery wrote: Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: X-Debbugs-CC'ed to the doc-base maintainer in case he wants to comment. Note, if it was *not* the intention to have doc-base follow the menu policy transition, please reassign this bug to doc-base and retitle to doc-base: should

Bug#463495: lintian should check doc-base files for old menu sections

2008-01-31 Thread Michael Biebl
Package: lintian Version: 1.23.42 Severity: normal Hi, lintian already warns, if menu files use old section names. doc-base files [1] should use the same section names as specified by the menu policy, so lintian should check the Section field in debian/*.doc-base files, too. Cheers, Michael

Processed: severity of 463495 is wishlist, merging 463474 463495

2008-01-31 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13 severity 463495 wishlist Bug#463495: lintian should check doc-base files for old menu sections Severity set to `wishlist' from `normal' merge 463474 463495 Bug#463474: lintian:

Bug#463474: lintian: Please check doc-base Section field for allowed values

2008-01-31 Thread Russ Allbery
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Somehow I must have completely missed that discussion. Thank you for the pointer. I guess what happens next is in the hands of doc-base maintainer then? That would be my preference. If he says that we'll continue using the menu categories, I'm