Chris Lamb:
> Ian Campbell wrote:
>
>>> aapt 1:8.1.0+r23-3 (binary) ($maintainer)
>>>
>>> * usr/lib/android-sdk/build-tools/debian/aapt [amd64, i386]
>>> * usr/lib/android-sdk/build-tools/debian/aapt2
>>
>> That's what I was thinking for the ideal case too.
>
> (This is probably
Ian Campbell wrote:
> > aapt 1:8.1.0+r23-3 (binary) ($maintainer)
> >
> > * usr/lib/android-sdk/build-tools/debian/aapt [amd64, i386]
> > * usr/lib/android-sdk/build-tools/debian/aapt2
>
> That's what I was thinking for the ideal case too.
(This is probably the same effort as
On Wed, 2019-01-16 at 23:03 +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Ian & Niels,
>
> > I: grub-common binary (2.02+dfsg1-10) [amd64]: hardening-no-bindnow
> usr/
> > bin/grub-editenv
> > I: grub-common binary (2.02+dfsg1-10) [i386]: hardening-no-bindnow
> usr/
> > bin/grub-editenv
>
> TIL we check both
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:03:25PM +, Chris Lamb wrote:
> TIL we check both x86 architectures. Why do we do this out of
> interest? Are there examples of tags we would only find on one but
> not the other...?
At the very least, the tag checking for LFS (large file support) is
emitted only on
Hi Ian & Niels,
> I: grub-common binary (2.02+dfsg1-10) [amd64]: hardening-no-bindnow usr/
> bin/grub-editenv
> I: grub-common binary (2.02+dfsg1-10) [i386]: hardening-no-bindnow usr/
> bin/grub-editenv
TIL we check both x86 architectures. Why do we do this out of
interest? Are there examples of
On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 06:19 +, Niels Thykier wrote:
> What you see is that grub-editenv have the tag twice because the tag
> appears on different architectures (i386 vs. amd64). The reporting
> framework was never updated to include this information more smoothly
> than simply adding the tag
Chris Lamb:
> [Adding ni...@thykier.net to CC]
>
> Hi Ian,
>
>> It seems that lintian.d.o lists some (all?) failures in a binary
>> package twice.
> […]
>> * usr/bin/grub-editenv
>> * usr/bin/grub-editenv
> […]
>
>> I failed to find the raw reports anywhere so I can't see if these are
>>
[Adding ni...@thykier.net to CC]
Hi Ian,
> It seems that lintian.d.o lists some (all?) failures in a binary
> package twice.
[…]
> * usr/bin/grub-editenv
> * usr/bin/grub-editenv
[…]
> I failed to find the raw reports anywhere so I can't see if these are
> duplicated there
So I dug them out
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.121
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
It seems that lintian.d.o lists some (all?) failures in a binary package twice.
Things look ok for the source package report.
For example at
9 matches
Mail list logo
