Hi Axel,
On 2023-01-15 11:12 +0100, Axel Beckert wrote:
> When running against BackupPC, lintian emits this tag:
>
> X: backuppc source: very-long-line-length-in-source-file 535 > 512
> [lib/BackupPC/CGI/GeneralInfo.pm:52]
>
> But there is no such long line in that file:
>
> $ cat -n
On 2022-12-26 22:28 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.115.3
> Severity: normal
>
> I get these warnings in ncurses' lib32* packages:
>
> ,
> | W: lib32ncurses6: lacks-unversioned-link-to-shared-library example:
> usr/lib32/libform.so [usr/
Package: lintian
Version: 2.115.3
Severity: normal
I get these warnings in ncurses:
,
| W: libncurses6: lacks-unversioned-link-to-shared-library example:
usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libncurses.so [lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libncurses.so.6.3]
| W: libncursesw6:
Package: lintian
Version: 2.115.3
Severity: normal
I get these warnings in ncurses' lib32* packages:
,
| W: lib32ncurses6: lacks-unversioned-link-to-shared-library example:
usr/lib32/libform.so [usr/lib32/libform.so.6.3]
| W: lib32ncurses6: lacks-unversioned-link-to-shared-library example:
Package: lintian
Version: 2.108.0
I am getting complaints about the symbols files in ncurses, e.g. for
libtinfo6:
,
| $ lintian /var/cache/apt/archives/libtinfo6_6.2+20210905-1_amd64.deb
| E: libtinfo6: invalid-template-id-in-symbols-file (line 152)
| E: libtinfo6:
Package: lintian
Version: 2.108.0
Severity: important
I am getting the following error in libtinfo6 (as well as in libtinfo5
and lib{32,64}tinfo6), which according to the FTP masters leads to
autorejection unless overridden:
,
| $ lintian
On 2018-01-23 11:15 +0530, Chris Lamb wrote:
> tags 798762 + moreinfo
> thanks
>
> Hi,
>
>> Lintian tag pre-depends-directly-on-multiarch-support too much
>> debhelper-centric
>
> It seems like this was not applied. That sucks. However, do we still
> need this now that the issue (and the stable
Package: lintian
Version: 2.68.0
Severity: normal
I have seen the following notice on a local testbuild after upgrading
the debhelper compat level:
,
| P: ncurses source: package-uses-experimental-debhelper-compat-version 13
`
The tag's description says
,
| The debhelper
Control: found -1 2.60.0
On 2020-03-25 11:09 +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
> which was filed against the lintian package:
>
> #954803: lintian: no-md5sums-control-file tag should not be triggered for
> udebs
>
> It has
Package: lintian
Version: 2.59.0
Severity: normal
The following is not supposed to happen, I think:
,
| $ lintian libtinfo6-udeb_6.2-1_amd64.udeb
| I: libtinfo6-udeb udeb: no-md5sums-control-file
`
AFAIK it is normal for udebs not to ship an md5sums control file, and
dh_md5sums does not
v 4, 2019 at 10:20 AM Sven Joachim wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me we are likely experiencing
>> https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/issues/153.
>
> Thanks for sharing! Perhaps that's why Lintian's test suite has been
> running so slow.
Does this test suite also involv
On 2019-11-01 10:42 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> Bringing man-db and libseccomp maintainers into the loop.
>
> On 2019-10-31 23:01 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:33 AM Sven Joachim wrote:
>>>
>>> Running lintian on packages
Bringing man-db and libseccomp maintainers into the loop.
On 2019-10-31 23:01 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:33 AM Sven Joachim wrote:
>>
>> Running lintian on packages with many manpages is painfully slow.
>
> I can confirm that it takes a
Package: lintian
Version: 2.31.0
Running lintian on packages with many manpages is painfully slow.
Just run "apt download manpages-dev && lintian manpages-dev*.deb" to
see for yourself. On this (admittedly dated) dual core machine it
took over three minutes.
Running 'top' in a different
Package: lintian
Version: 2.21.0
Severity: normal
There are currently three packages in the archive which trigger the
missing-build-dependency error. All three of these build-depend on
dh-autoreconf, but not on debhelper, and they also trigger the
package-uses-debhelper-but-lacks-build-depends
Package: lintian
Version: 2.6.0
Severity: normal
I am getting these warnings in libncurses-dev:
,
| W: libncurses-dev: pkg-config-references-unknown-shared-library
usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/pkgconfig/ncurses++.pc -lncurses++ (line 17)
| W: libncurses-dev:
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.106
Severity: wishlist
The spellchecker of my mailer has just caught a spelling mistake, where
I quoted from the debhelper 11.4 Debian changelog entry: "This should
not make any pratical difference" (see #909762).
Looking at codesearch.debian.net, I found 28 source
On 2018-03-11 10:36 +0100, Laurent Bigonville wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.5.79
> Severity: normal
>
> Hi,
>
> Looking at
> https://lintian.debian.org/tags/depends-on-build-essential-package-without-using-version.html
> it seems that the page is missing some packages like libicu-dev.
>
. Attached is a patch
which fixes the problem for me.
Cheers,
Sven
>From 79d1e25c640b736814cab0b5f2f03251902a1b82 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sven Joachim <svenj...@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:09:44 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Avoid raising false multiarch-foreign-* errors
Only run
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.10.4
Severity: wishlist
There are ~70 source packages in unstable/main which contain
debian/shlibs.local. It seems that most of them are library packages
where this file contains information about packages actually shipped
from the same source, and AFAIK there is
On 2012-05-18 22:34 +0200, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ralf Jung p...@ralfj.de writes:
I'd like to extend this to hardening-no-fortify-functions: My package
definitely has -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 set (an excerpt from the build flags:
-fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -Wformat
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.7
Severity: important
Running lintian on ncurses displays the following errors which would
lead to auto-rejection unless overridden:
,
| E: lib64ncurses5: missing-dependency-on-libc needed by
lib64/libncurses.so.5.9 and 3 others
| E: lib64tinfo5:
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.7
Severity: normal
I had trouble figuring out what lintian was trying to tell me here:
,
| W: libncursesw5: dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink
lib/i386-linux-gnu/libncursesw.so.5.9 lib/i386-linux-gnu/libncursesw.so
| W: lib64ncurses5: dev-pkg-without-shlib-symlink
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.7
Severity: normal
The new hardening warnings are certainly a useful reminder to use
dpkg-buildflags, but especially hardening-no-stackprotector seems to
have a high number of false positives. In ncurses-examples alone there
are no less than 40
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.2
Consider the following situation (see bug #631952 why I'm doing this):
,
| $ dpkg-deb --contents libncurses5-dev_5.9-2_i386.deb | grep '\.so$'
| -rw-r--r-- root/root31 2011-08-29 20:40
./usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/libncurses.so
| lrwxrwxrwx root/root
On 2011-08-29 21:22 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
(see bug #631952 why I'm doing this):
Gnah, make that #631592 instead. Never type Debian bug numbers by hand,
always use copy paste. Sorry for the little inconvenience.
Cheers,
Sven
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.1
Severity: normal
I had some trouble figuring out how to put variables into ~/.lintianrc.
RTFM did not quite help, since the lintian manpage does not seem to give
a description of its format, although I figured out that it's probably
one variable per line. So I did
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
With ncurses built for multiarch (no public branch for that available
yet -- sorry), lintian spits out this warning:
,
| W: libncurses5: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libform5 libmenu5 libpanel5
libtic5
| N:
| N:The
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.0~rc2
I was about to update a package to the newest Standards-Version, and
lintian complained:
,
| W: ncurses source: newer-standards-version 3.9.2 (current is 3.9.1)
| N:
| N:The source package refers to a Standards-Version which is newer than the
| N:
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.0~rc1
Lintian now complains about libraries in /lib64 (but not
/usr/lib64), e.g. for lib64ncurses5 it barfs:
,
| E: lib64ncurses5: binary-from-other-architecture lib64/libncurses.so.5.7
| N:
| N:This ELF binary appears to have been built for an architecture
Package: lintian
Version: 2.2.18
Severity: wishlist
For quite a while emacs23 has been the default Emacs flavor in
squeeze/sid. Could you please update the depends-on-old-emacs warning
to also warn if the package prefers emacs22 as first alternative?
In related news, emacs21 has been removed
31 matches
Mail list logo
