Hi,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:07 PM Jiri Palecek wrote:
>
> Yeah and it's (slightly?) wrong in using of the negative assertions.
I thought I also changed some when importing xdeb. Which are wrong, please?
> Maybe another time.
Let's take care of it now!
Kind regards
Felix Lechner
Hi
On 30. 03. 20 16:14, Felix Lechner wrote:
Thanks for being persistent. It made my work a lot easier. I totally
agree with you. I will remove the xdeb check in the near future.
That's nice to hear! Thank you.
I will only keep the test, which is slightly different from
t/tags/checks/binaries/
Hi Jiri,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 5:54 AM Jiri Palecek wrote:
>
> That's good; however, I'd like to know why is that tag even needed
> in lintian, and if removing that altogether wouldn't be the best course
> of action. Especially given that lintian already has a tag for the very
> same check, but
Hi,
On 29. 03. 20 18:53, Felix Lechner wrote:
positives. Your issue should be fixed on all architectures (or at
least I hope) with this commit:
https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/53fd192e6cc0f2cd6028f659ae1c30888bf94872
The issues surrounding multilib and cross building to
Hi Andreas,
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:27 AM Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>
> I also get these while testing an i386 .deb on an amd64 host.
Thank you for this pointer. It was most helpful for many false
positives. Your issue should be fixed on all architectures (or at
least I hope) with this commit:
On 3/25/20 3:11 PM, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 4:51 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>> I don't know when that was introduced, but you see some hundred of those in
>> the
>> gcc-N packages:
>
> The tag was introduced when the sole Lintian check provided by the
> xdeb pack
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 07:11:02 -0700 Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi,
Hello,
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 4:51 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
> >
> > I don't know when that was introduced, but you see some hundred of
those in the
> > gcc-N packages:
>
> The tag was introduced when the sole Lintian check provi
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 4:51 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> I don't know when that was introduced, but you see some hundred of those in
> the
> gcc-N packages:
The tag was introduced when the sole Lintian check provided by the
xdeb package became part of Lintian. Given recent changes, it was
Followup-For: Bug #954415
Control: found -1 2.57.0
I also get these while testing an i386 .deb on an amd64 host.
This is a regression introduced after the 2.55.0 release.
Andreas
Package: lintian
I don't know when that was introduced, but you see some hundred of those in the
gcc-N packages:
E: libx32gcc-9-dev:
ESC]8;;https://lintian.debian.org/tags/binary-is-wrong-architecture.htmlESC\binary-is-wrong-architectureESC]8;;ESC\
usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/9/x32/crtend.o
So
10 matches
Mail list logo
