At 7:01 pm, Wednesday, August 21 2002, Anthony Towns mumbled:
> linda doesn't run cleanly over the entire archive -- it misbehaves on
> some packages (leaving /tmp/linda-* directories about), and just seems
> to hang on others. I haven't tracked down what's causing this. I don't
> believe it inclu
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:14:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> We've _finally_ got lintian running over the archive again, and it looks like
> we'll have some chance of keeping it working. The URL is
>
> http://people.debian.org/~joy/
>
> until lintian.debian.org gets updated to point at
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Things like libdb1 compliance, usage of nice(2), statistics for debhelper
> versus debstd usage, are all better collected by lintian.debian.org than
> by separate scripts.
I quite agree, and I would love to stop churning auric each morning
grepping the whole archive for the
Package: lintian
Version: 1.20.17
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
> Rather than mass filing bugs, can you write a lintian check for it
> instead?
As promised, here is the check:
diff -u -urNad old/copyright-file new/copyright-file
--- old/copyright-file 2002-08-20 23:04:54.0 +0200
+++ ne
> >> Rather than mass filing bugs, can you write a lintian check for it
> >> instead?
> >
> > He filed a bug about Upstream Author(s), I fixed it, and then shaleh and
> > others reverted it >:)
> >
>
> I think we have better things to be nitpicky about. Besides, lintian tries to
> only enforce
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 05:56:58PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> > Some time ago, I assembled a list of packages which were arch: all,
> > yet used binary-arch to build the package, and another list of
> > packages whose debian/copyright did not have a pointer to the full
> > license.
>
> Rather
Anthony Towns writes:
> Things like libdb1 compliance, usage of nice(2), statistics for debhelper
> versus debstd usage, are all better collected by lintian.debian.org than
> by separate scripts.
Input for a database of historical MD5 hashes of individual files
would be nice, too.
--
Florian
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 09:33:39PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > If all goes well I have the month of September for lintian hacking.
> So how does lintian compare to linda these days? Will both be
> actively maintained and do the exact same thing?
linda
Previously Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> If all goes well I have the month of September for lintian hacking.
So how does lintian compare to linda these days? Will both be
actively maintained and do the exact same thing?
Wichert.
--
__
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 10:23:29AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On 20-Aug-2002 Josip Rodin wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:14:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> Rather than mass filing bugs, can you write a lintian check for it
> >> instead?
> > He filed a bug about Upstream Author(
On 20-Aug-2002 Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 10:23:29AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>> >> Rather than mass filing bugs, can you write a lintian check for it
>> >> instead?
>> >
>> > He filed a bug about Upstream Author(s), I fixed it, and then shaleh and
>> > others reverted
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 10:23:29AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> >> Rather than mass filing bugs, can you write a lintian check for it
> >> instead?
> >
> > He filed a bug about Upstream Author(s), I fixed it, and then shaleh and
> > others reverted it >:)
>
> I think we have better things
On 20-Aug-2002 Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:14:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> Rather than mass filing bugs, can you write a lintian check for it
>> instead?
>
> He filed a bug about Upstream Author(s), I fixed it, and then shaleh and
> others reverted it >:)
>
I think we
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:14:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Rather than mass filing bugs, can you write a lintian check for it
> instead?
He filed a bug about Upstream Author(s), I fixed it, and then shaleh and
others reverted it >:)
> We've _finally_ got lintian running over the archive aga
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 05:56:58PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Some time ago, I assembled a list of packages which were arch: all,
> yet used binary-arch to build the package, and another list of
> packages whose debian/copyright did not have a pointer to the full
> license.
Rather than mass fili
Hi!
Some time ago, I assembled a list of packages which were arch: all,
yet used binary-arch to build the package, and another list of
packages whose debian/copyright did not have a pointer to the full
license.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to file the bugs at that time, so I redid
the test now. S
16 matches
Mail list logo
