Felix Lechner writes:
> It is actionable in that we can contact upstream (if the project is
> alive), but it will not improve the relationship. The tag is a
> widespread problem in the archive and a nuisance to many people. The tag
> should be removed. May I please retitle this bug?
Sure, yes,
Hi Russ,
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 1:40 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> To me, an override implies that Lintian is wrong, and I don't think it
> is.
Why did you file a bug report? Please use an override. :)
Joking aside, I do not think you are right. An override indicates the
maintainer will not
Hi Russ,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:08 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> the original request was to
> suppress the tag source-contains-empty-directory if the Debian patch set
> explicitly adds a file to that directory
An override is more explicit, and also more self-explanatory, when
compared to a
Felix Lechner writes:
> An override is more explicit, and also more self-explanatory, when
> compared to a '.placeholder'.
To me, an override implies that Lintian is wrong, and I don't think it
is. (Whether the tag should exist is a different question; not all
problems are worth fixing.) It's
Apologies for the long delay in getting back to this bug. To recap
history briefly since it's been a few months, the original request was to
suppress the tag source-contains-empty-directory if the Debian patch set
explicitly adds a file to that directory, and the example package affected
by this
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 4:51 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I don't think there was anything specific to
> git-buildpackage there.
Isn't the whole problem specific to git-buildpackage?
> The result is that the patches-applied Debian
> packaging tree is then representable in Git, which did seem
Felix Lechner writes:
> Please forgive me. I misunderstood your original filing.
Oh, it's no problem! Apologies if I came across as upset. I think I
didn't phrase my reply very well.
> Well, I do not use git-buildpackage, and such an intricate and obscure
> solution does nothing for me.
To
Hi Russ,
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:36 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I would like Lintian to stop complaining about this when a file is
> explicitly added to that directory by the packaging. It's otherwise
> unactionable by the maintainer.
Please forgive me. I misunderstood your original filing.
Felix Lechner writes:
> I don't think this is a bug in Lintian.
> The source tarball xfonts-jmk_3.0.orig.tar.gz contains an empty
> directory 'neep/ascii/':
> $ dget
> http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/x/xfonts-jmk/xfonts-jmk_3.0-22.dsc
> $ tar tf xfonts-jmk_3.0.orig.tar.gz
>
Hi Russ,
I don't think this is a bug in Lintian.
The source tarball xfonts-jmk_3.0.orig.tar.gz contains an empty
directory 'neep/ascii/':
$ dget
http://deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/x/xfonts-jmk/xfonts-jmk_3.0-22.dsc
$ tar tf xfonts-jmk_3.0.orig.tar.gz
. . .
10 matches
Mail list logo
