On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:16:38PM +0100, Bluefuture wrote:
I'm asking to jdg and other devscript developers if is it possible to
support some official excuses in the watch file (and uscan) for example:
version=3
debian-native
or for any other offcially precoded excuses.
Ugh. You mean
Package: lintian
Version: 2.2.17
Please see bug#486144: doc-base now has a Typesetting section; please
could you add this to the lintian doc-base checks?
Thanks!
Julian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.13
I just noticed that packages such as dbus still have a reference to
update-notifier that warn that a reboot is required. But sid no
longer has that functionality - update-notifier is just a transitional
package. So maintainers should be warned if their postinst
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 02:03:31PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I can believe the same thing about this JavaScript, though. It's not
> really that long, an editor is going to hard-wrap the line, and I bet most
> changes are just adding an additional condition.
>
> I'd be inclined to just
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.52
Severity: normal
Hi there,
lintian gives a false-positive source-is-missing for
css_browser_selector.js (though in my case the file has been
renamed). The upstream source is
https://github.com/rafaelp/css_browser_selector/ and the original
source is just one
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:33:58PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> tags 874381 + pending
> thanks
>
> Fixed in Git:
>
>
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=72d95b8ee796cafcdc05d4c612d1b435b9c37302
I wonder whether the patch should check for css_browser_selector (the
On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:12:05PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> > I wonder whether the patch should check for css_browser_selector (the
> > function name) rather than 'css browser selector' (the title)?
>
> Great idea. I didn't actually spot this in the $block variable. Updated
>
On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 05:28:47PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hey Juliam.
>
> > false-positive source-is-missing bug for css_browser_selector.js
>
> Is it? I don't want to start haggling over the interpretation of
> "preferred form for modification", but surely this is the "source":
>
>
>
On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 10:32:55AM +0200, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the following also triggers the check, and I think it's a false positive,
> and would still be even with the proposed change:
>
> License: CC0
Indeed - good catch. We have to treat CC0 differently, as it's got
different
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 04:32:08PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> > The test for the human-readable rather than legal text of the Creative
> > Commons licenses seems to fail, because the preamble about Creative
> > Commons not being a law firm is not part of the license text, and
> >
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 02:36:34PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Julian et al.,
>
> > if ($full_license and $short_license =~ m/cc-/) {
> > if ($full_license !~ /definitions/i and
> > $full_license !~ /copyright and related rights/i and
> > $full_license !~
Package: lintian
Version: 2.114.0
Severity: normal
I was testing a new version of spyder and received the following
error message from lintian:
E: spyder source: duplicate-globbing-patterns
spyder/plugins/editor/utils/kill_ring.py (lines $lines) [debian/copyright]
Presumably the $lines
Package: lintian
Version: 2.114.0
Severity: wishlist
I discovered that in several of my autopkgtest scripts, and in various
other packages in the archive, the following pattern appears:
...
cd somewhere
...
for py in $(py3versions -r 2>/dev/null)
...
Unfortunately, this silently fails, as no
Hi Mattia,
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 03:39:54PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 06:49:12AM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I discovered that in several of my autopkgtest scripts, and in various
> > other packages in the archive, the foll
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 04:56:51PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Hi Mattia,
>
> > that's because you are using the wrong option.
>
> You may well be correct. That doesn't change the reality that this is
> what is happening in a number of packages.
Hi Mattia,
Here's
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 05:15:52AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> This is certainly not a major issue, but your py3versions invocation in the
> autopkgtest is sub-optimal. You are using -r for requested versions, but
> then the package doesn't request specific versions so if falls back to all
>
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 05:33:14AM -0800, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 2:27 AM Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >
> > *If* the consensus is that py3versions -r is wrong, then we should
> > probably have a lintian check for it: py3versions -r (and varia
Package: lintian
Version: 2.114.0
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: Debian Python Team
I just hit two packages which gave me the following warning when
pkg_resources tried to load them:
/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py:116:
PkgResourcesDeprecationWarning:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 04:42:57PM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > The test for this bug (and it should probably be recorded as an error,
> > not just a warning, as no Python package should have a version number
> > of 0.0.0)
>
> what exactly is the problem that would make it an 'error'?
When a
Package: lintian
Version: 2.111.0
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
I just ran into several Python packages that install modules with
version number 0.0.0 because of some issue with their setup.py
scripts. I just did the following on my testing system:
lz4cat
On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 04:46:53PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Julian (2022.02.06_12:19:54_+)
> > In the couple of cases I've looked at so far, it is due to the
> > upstream version using use_scm_version in setup.py. This works fine
> > for a version that is in a Git repository, but it
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 07:23:32PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 00:56:11 +0100 Guillem Jover wrote:
> [...]
> > The same with XS-Go-Import-Path, and I guess a bunch of other fields
> > that are unknown to dpkg-dev.
>
> Same here with my package (apt-listbugs).
Ditto for
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 08:37:33AM -0800, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 7:01 AM Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >
> > So perhaps another clause or two, something along the lines of the
> > following, would be good?
>
> Your suggestion was
Package: lintian
Version: 2.116.3
Severity: normal
Just building a Python package with this version, and I receive the
info tag:
I: python3-bytecode: package-contains-documentation-outside-usr-share-doc
[usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/bytecode-0.15.0.dist-info/top_level.txt]
I think (almost)
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 12:18:58AM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> Control: tags -1 patch
>
> Hello,
>
> It seems that .dist-info and .egg-info are always ignored for this
> warning anyway. However dist-info should contain
> [...]
>
> On digging into dh-python changelog, I see the entry:
>
>
On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 07:57:58PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 02:45:21PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > I just hit two packages which gave me the following warning when
> > pkg_resources tried to load them:
> >
> > /usr/lib/python3/
Package: lintian
Version: 2.115.3
Severity: normal
My package-in-progress node-webfont declares Build-Depends:
dh-sequence-nodejs, which is (only) provided by dh-nodejs. It uses
dh_nodejs_autodocs, and lintian reports:
E: node-webfont source: missing-build-dependency-for-dh_-command
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 09:02:40AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 07:57:58PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 02:45:21PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > I just hit two packages which gave me the following warning when
> &g
Package: lintian
Version: 2.117.0
Severity: wishlist
I have come across a number of packages with a line in their
debian/rules like:
ifeq (,$(findstring nodocs, $(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
This should be "nodoc", according to the "nodoc" entry in
On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 01:13:45PM -0400, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> tags 1070770 patch
> thanks
>
> I've created a patch on Salsa that creates a new Lintian check for this.
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/merge_requests/504
Amazing, thanks!
I've added a bunch of
Hi Nilesh,
On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 12:27:02PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> Julian Gilbey :
> > I have come across a number of packages with a line in their
> > debian/rules like:
> >
> > ifeq (,$(findstring nodocs, $(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS)))
> >
>
31 matches
Mail list logo
