Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.20
Severity: wishlist
Going through the latest automake transition made me realize that many
packages have an unnecessary build dependency on automake. They don't invoke
it directly or use it through dh-autoreconf.
A test would look something like:
- If there's a bu
Package: lintian
Severity: wishlist
There are some problematic copyright format 1.0 license statements in
the archive. The most common is "UNKNOWN", sometimes with "FIXME" as the
full license but sometimes completely blank. In one file "UNKNOWN" is
defined as "No information available about the li
Daniel Pocock writes:
> Some packages ship an autotools config.h in /usr/include/foo/config.h
> Here is a list of such packages:
> http://packages.debian.org/search?searchon=contents&keywords=config.h&mode=exactfilename&suite=stable&arch=any
> This can cause problems if one autotools-based pac
On 2013-12-30 7:59, Daniel Pocock wrote:
In my package reconserver, I have the following:
adduser --system \
--home "${RECONSERVER_HOME}" \
--shell /bin/false \
--no-create-home \
--ingroup "$RECONSERVER_GROUP" \
--disabled-password
Package: lintian
Severity: wishlist
Some packages ship an autotools config.h in /usr/include/foo/config.h
Here is a list of such packages:
http://packages.debian.org/search?searchon=contents&keywords=config.h&mode=exactfilename&suite=stable&arch=any
This can cause problems if one autotools-base
Package: lintian
Severity: wishlist
Maintainers typically write the "Depends" header for a dev package
manually, unlike with shared libraries that are added to Depends using
the variable expansion ${shlibs:Depends}
E.g.
Package: libfoo-dev
Depends: libbar-dev, libboost-dev
It is quite possible
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.20-14-ga8c196b
Here is the report from lintian:
http://lintian.debian.org/tags/maintainer-script-should-not-use-adduser-system-without-home.html
In my package reconserver, I have the following:
adduser --system \
--home "${RECONSERVER_HOME}" \
7 matches
Mail list logo
