Hi Ben,
> I'm not sure what the NB refers to; that part of the changelog entry
> is exactly the difference I was pointing out. So we both seem to be
> directing each other's attention to the same thing :-)
Exactly; I was pointing it out to myself or the "next person" who also perhaps
didn't imme
On 22-Jan-2019, Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> > ipsum (3.4.5-2) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
> >
> > * Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
> > * Cras in sem consequat, consectetur ligula ac, volutpat nulla.
> >
> > --
> ^
>
tags 920184 + pending
retitle 920184 lintian: incorrectly parses empty changelog signature line as an
NMU
thanks
Hi Ben,
> ipsum (3.4.5-2) UNRELEASED; urgency=medium
>
> * Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
> * Cras in sem consequat, consectetur ligula ac, volutpat nul
On 22-Jan-2019, Ben Finney wrote:
> In earlier Lintian versions (e.g. 2.5.94) an unfinalised changelog
> entry would be handled correctly: no maintainer and no release timestamp.
>
> […]
>
> (Could this be related to the recent Lintian change “[…] now we are
> trialling using gbp-dch”?)
If it is
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.122
Severity: normal
Lintian has recently regressed from correct handling of unfinalised
changelog entries (treating them as an unfinalised release), and is
now instead giving erroneous tags to the changelog.
For example, a source package whose latest changelog entry
5 matches
Mail list logo
