Bug#922544: lintian: Mass tag rename to unify naming convention
Hi, On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 2:30 PM Chris Lamb wrote: > > > As I mentioned initially, I don't think the patch is ready as is, it > > even has syntax errors The suggestions from this bug report will be adopted in the near future. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Processed: lintian: Pending rename for some shared library tags
Processing control commands: > tags -1 - wontfix Bug #534938 [lintian] [general] tag names are inconsistent Removed tag(s) wontfix. -- 534938: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=534938 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#534938: lintian: Pending rename for some shared library tags
Control: tags -1 - wontfix Hi, > Probably only one prefix (shlib or shared-lib) should be used. I agree with this sentiment. This will be implemented in the near future. The new prefix will be shared-lib. > I'm not sure that it's worth the disruption The tag rename facility will make this process somewhat easier on maintainers. Also, overrides are available in a Postgres database. Any impact can be assessed beforehand. The number of affected overrides will be documented. Kind regards Felix Lechner
Bug#924715: marked as done (lintian: Please rename the process based on what it is done (i.e. set $0))
Your message dated Thu, 28 May 2020 12:06:30 -0700 with message-id and subject line Re: Bug#924715: lintian: Please rename the process based on what it is done (i.e. set $0) has caused the Debian Bug report #924715, regarding lintian: Please rename the process based on what it is done (i.e. set $0) to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 924715: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=924715 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems --- Begin Message --- Package: lintian Version: 2.9.1 Severity: wishlist Hi, It is very useful when lintian changes its process name based on what it is doing (in particularly when debugging things like #924714). Though, only unpack jobs are currently the only parts that use this feature. Please expand it to more parts so it is easier to see what is running amock. Thanks, ~Niels --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Hi, On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 2:48 AM Niels Thykier wrote: > > It is very useful when lintian changes its process name Lintian only uses one process at the moment. The name currently includes all arguments. It is set here: https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/blob/master/commands/lintian.pm#L541 Parallel execution of checks does not work presently (probably due to a limitation in IO::Async) but the branch includes statements to set the process IDs accordingly. Closing this bug. Kind regards Felix Lechner--- End Message ---
Bug#961709: lintian: Warn if R binary packages don't depend on virtual r-api-* package
On 28 May 2020 at 10:10, Dylan Aïssi wrote:
| Package: lintian
| Version: 2.77.1
| Severity: wishlist
| X-Debbugs-CC: debia...@lists.debian.org
|
| Hi,
|
| I just saw a R binary package (r-cran-isospec) with wrong dependencies
| (bug not yet opened). Lintian doesn't warn about a problem in its
| dependencies, so it would be cool to add a new warning (maybe
| "missing-dependency-on-r-api") to warn if any R binary packages (
| r-{cran|bioc|other}-* ) don't depend at least to a virtual r-api-*
| package.
Not a bad idea.
OTOH the way we implement the tag doesn't it get added automagically by the
r-base-core package when constructing an r-{cran,bioc,...}-* package?
Dirk
--
http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
Bug#961709: lintian: Warn if R binary packages don't depend on virtual r-api-* package
Hi Dylan,
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:10:54AM +0200, Dylan Aïssi wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.77.1
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-CC: debia...@lists.debian.org
>
> Hi,
>
> I just saw a R binary package (r-cran-isospec) with wrong dependencies
> (bug not yet opened). Lintian doesn't warn about a problem in its
> dependencies, so it would be cool to add a new warning (maybe
> "missing-dependency-on-r-api") to warn if any R binary packages (
> r-{cran|bioc|other}-* ) don't depend at least to a virtual r-api-*
> package.
Please go for it.
Regarding the actual package: I'd strongly suggest to move it to
R pkg team as we did with all those packages (and when doing so also
change the source package name from isospec to r-cran-isospec).
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Bug#961709: lintian: Warn if R binary packages don't depend on virtual r-api-* package
Hi, Le jeu. 28 mai 2020 à 10:15, Dylan Aïssi a écrit : > > I just saw a R binary package (r-cran-isospec) with wrong dependencies > Some days ago, I found another package with similar bug (r-bioc-mofa). Already fixed in unstable but the version in testing has wrong dependencies. This tag will help to identify these packages. With the recent r-api-4.0 transition, it would be quite bad to leave behind these packages. Best, Dylan
Bug#961709: lintian: Warn if R binary packages don't depend on virtual r-api-* package
Package: lintian
Version: 2.77.1
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debia...@lists.debian.org
Hi,
I just saw a R binary package (r-cran-isospec) with wrong dependencies
(bug not yet opened). Lintian doesn't warn about a problem in its
dependencies, so it would be cool to add a new warning (maybe
"missing-dependency-on-r-api") to warn if any R binary packages (
r-{cran|bioc|other}-* ) don't depend at least to a virtual r-api-*
package.
Thanks
Best,
Dylan
