Re: Ultra All Inclusiv-5 Sterne Hotels.

[Kaufmann Erica]

Title: Re: Ultra All Inclusiv-5 Sterne Hotels.







Hallo


Ich interessiere mich für Urlaub in der Südtürkei im Oktober 2006 und bin auf Ihre emailadresse gestossen.


Bitte senden Sie mir so rasch als möglich Links zu Ihrer Firma und zu den verschiedenen Hotels, die Sie anbieten.


Besten Dank und freundliche Grüsse


___

Allreal Generalunternehmung AG

Erica Kaufmann

Gaiserwaldstrasse 14

9015 St. Gallen

Tel. 071 314 08 20 / Fax 071 314 08 21

[EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://www.allreal.ch

Bug#386968: lintian: LSB-compliance check doesn't accept empty lines

[Russ Allbery]

Erich Schubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Package: lintian
> Version: 1.23.24
> Severity: normal

> W: pyroman: init.d-script-missing-lsb-keyword /etc/init.d/pyroman 
> required-stop
> N:
> N:   This /etc/init.d script has an LSB keyword section, but it is missing
> N:   the given required LSB keyword. If the value of this keyword should be
> N:   empty, please still include it in the LSB keyword section with an
> N:   empty value.
> N:
> N:   Refer to http://wiki.debian.org/LSBInitScripts for details.
> N:

> grep -i required-stop /etc/init.d/pyroman
> # Required-Stop:

> The line is there, it's just empty since pyroman doesn't do "stop" (what is
> the well-defined stop action for an iptables setup tool? IMHO a noop, because
> it's not "iptables stop") - so it doesn't have any stop dependencies.

Sorry about that; the code was supposed to handle this, but was missing a
defined check.  Will be fixed in the next upload.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#387166: lintian: Failed to identify Priorities error: Policy 2.5.

[Neil Williams]

Package: lintian
Version: 1.23.24
Severity: important

A recent upload of QOF included two new packages. The main library is
dependent on at least one of these new packages being installed and is
Priority: optional. However, I inadvertently put the two new packages as
Priority: extra and lintian did NOT complain. When the upload was made,
the two new binaries raised a Debcheck error:

Binary Package: libqof1 (Version: 0.7.1-1)

Priority

According to Policy Section 2.5: Priorities packages MUST NOT depend on
packages with lower priority values (excluding build-time dependencies).
In order to ensure this, the priorities of one or more packages must be
adjusted.

Package is optional and has a Depends on libqof-backend-qsf0 (within
libqof-backend-qsf0 | libqof-backend-sqlite0) which is extra on mips.
etc.

I have since built and my sponsor has uploaded 0.7.1-2 which corrects
the settings in the debian/control file for qof before the Debcheck
becomes an RC bug. Despite the Debcheck page being created, the online
lintian page indicates no lintian errors in 0.7.1-1.

Lintian should make sure that errors like this are caught in future
because 2.5 is a 'must' in Policy.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16-1-amd64-k8
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

Versions of packages lintian depends on:
ii  binutils 2.17-2  The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii  diffstat 1.43-1  produces graph of changes introduc
ii  dpkg-dev 1.13.22 package building tools for Debian
ii  file 4.17-3  Determines file type using "magic"
ii  gettext  0.15-2  GNU Internationalization utilities
ii  intltool-debian  0.35.0+20060710 Help i18n of RFC822 compliant conf
ii  libparse-debianchangelog 1.0-1   parse Debian changelogs and output
ii  man-db   2.4.3-3 The on-line manual pager
ii  perl [libdigest-md5-perl 5.8.8-6.1   Larry Wall's Practical Extraction 

lintian recommends no packages.

-- no debconf information


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Processed: Re: Bug#387166: lintian: Failed to identify Priorities error: Policy 2.5.

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

> severity 387166 wishlist
Bug#387166: lintian: Failed to identify Priorities error: Policy 2.5.
Severity set to `wishlist' from `important'

> retitle 387166 [checks/fields] diagnose priority inversion within a source 
> package
Bug#387166: lintian: Failed to identify Priorities error: Policy 2.5.
Changed Bug title.

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#387166: lintian: Failed to identify Priorities error: Policy 2.5.

[Russ Allbery]

severity 387166 wishlist
retitle 387166 [checks/fields] diagnose priority inversion within a source 
package
thanks

Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Package: lintian
> Version: 1.23.24
> Severity: important

A missing check in lintian is not an important bug in the lintian package
itself.  lintian does not promise to find all RC bugs in packages, and in
fact there are many that it structurally *cannot* find and will never be
able to find because it only looks at packages at (at most) the source
package granularity.  A request for a new check is a wishlist bug.

> A recent upload of QOF included two new packages. The main library is
> dependent on at least one of these new packages being installed and is
> Priority: optional. However, I inadvertently put the two new packages as
> Priority: extra and lintian did NOT complain. When the upload was made,
> the two new binaries raised a Debcheck error:

Right, debcheck does cross-package checks that lintian can't perform;
that's one of the reasons why debcheck is a good supplemental system to
lintian.

In this particular case, it's at least possible for lintian to have found
your bug, since you're talking about multiple packages built from the same
source package with interdependencies and incorrect relative priorities.
Analysis of the source package control field could catch this.  I'm not
sure how high of a priority doing that would be, but it may be relatively
straightforward.

It's not possible for lintian to catch the *general* instance of this
problem, though, where the package depended on comes from another source
package.

> I have since built and my sponsor has uploaded 0.7.1-2 which corrects
> the settings in the debian/control file for qof before the Debcheck
> becomes an RC bug.

While priority inversion is a policy violation, it has not historically
been an RC bug.  Not all policy violations are RC.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#386968: lintian: LSB-compliance check doesn't accept empty lines

[Erich Schubert]

Hi,
> Sorry about that; the code was supposed to handle this, but was missing a
> defined check.  Will be fixed in the next upload.

Thank you. I just wanted to know if it's me doing something wrong or the
test.

best regards,
Erich Schubert
-- 
   erich@(vitavonni.de|debian.org)--GPG Key ID: 4B3A135C(o_
Reality continues to ruin my life --- Calvin//\
  Großen Herren und schönen Frauen  V_/_
 Soll man gern dienen, wenig trauen. --- Georg Rollenhagen