Hi Niels, Niels Thykier wrote: > I believe we use none of those - instead we are using aspell + aspell-en.
I see. Indeed, those packages are in the b-d. Could have checked there. :-) So my first guess is bogus now as I have no other apsell dictionary installed on that machine: ~ → dpkg -l | fgrep aspell | awk '{print $1" "$2}' ii aspell ii aspell-en ii libaspell-dev:amd64 ii libaspell15:amd64 ii libtext-aspell-perl ~ → > It seems that the command used is "aspell list -l en -p /dev/null" and > that Test::Spell has a "set_spell_cmd" that could be (ab)used for this > purpose. I have not tested it - but if it works in and outside a clean > chroot, I certainly do not mind having it in the test case. Having had a look at /usr/share/perl5/Test/Spelling.pm, I noticed that not aspell but spell from the package spell is Test::Spelling's top preference: sub spellchecker_candidates { # if they've specified a spellchecker, use only that one return $SPELLCHECKER if $SPELLCHECKER; return ( 'spell', # for back-compat, this is the top candidate ... 'aspell list -l en -p /dev/null', # ... but this should become first soon 'ispell -l', 'hunspell -l', ); } This is also reflected in libtest-spelling-perl's recommendations: Recommends: spell | aspell | ispell | hunspell So having "spell" installed seems what made the lintian build fail. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150416213135.gp5...@sym.noone.org