Ben Finney wrote:
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
Do you object to spelling-error-in-binary,
duplicated-key-in-desktop-entry, embedded-zlib, duplicate-font-file or
the other lintian tests that check upstream stuff?
I think they lead to widely-used, persistent overrides, and I think such
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de writes:
Usually an override is a fail in the maintainer's brain or a bug in
lintian. Only in rare cases overrides are the right way to go.
Yes, that's pretty much my point: that *if* a Lintian check leads to
many maintainers adding an override for that tag that
Hi, I believe that the following entries are incorrect:
/usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN
/usr/share/pyshared/cups-1.0.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN
/usr/share/pyshared/Django-1.1.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN
/usr/share/pyshared/git_build_package-0.0.0.egg-info:License:
W. Martin Borgert deba...@debian.org writes:
Hi, I believe that the following entries are incorrect:
/usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN
/usr/share/pyshared/cups-1.0.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN
[…]
/usr/share/pyshared/spambayes-1.0.4.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN
* W. Martin Borgert deba...@debian.org, 2009-10-17, 13:23:
Hi, I believe that the following entries are incorrect:
/usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN
[snip]
I'm too lazy right now to file bugs
It would be better to file a bug against lintian to have a check for
Jakub Wilk uba...@users.sf.net writes:
* W. Martin Borgert deba...@debian.org, 2009-10-17, 13:23:
/usr/share/pyshared/arista-0.9.1.egg-info:License: UNKNOWN
It would be better to file a bug against lintian to have a check for
such issues.
I disagree. This issue in the ‘setup.py’ settings is
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
I disagree. This issue in the ‘setup.py’ settings is upstream's
responsibility. Lintian is best reserved for reporting problems that are
the Debian package maintainer's responsibility.
Do you object to
On 2009-10-17 23:59, Ben Finney wrote:
So currently I don't think they are bugs of any severity above ‘minor’.
I agree, that this is 'minor' or even 'wishlist'.
Presumably all these are created by upstream ‘setup.py’ settings, so it
would ultimately be for upstream to fix in each case.
The
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
Do you object to spelling-error-in-binary,
duplicated-key-in-desktop-entry, embedded-zlib, duplicate-font-file or
the other lintian tests that check upstream stuff?
I think they lead to widely-used, persistent overrides, and I think such
overrides are an
On 2009-10-18 09:46, Ben Finney wrote:
I don't have a strong objection in this case, and I can see good
arguments for and against a Lintian check. I wouldn't put up a fight
either way :-)
Me neither, it's certainly one of the least pressing issues we
have with Debian Python :~)
--
To
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 6:46 AM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
Do you object to spelling-error-in-binary,
duplicated-key-in-desktop-entry, embedded-zlib, duplicate-font-file or
the other lintian tests that check upstream stuff?
I think they
11 matches
Mail list logo