[lintian] branch master updated (213f030 -> 10d51c2)

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. lamby pushed a change to branch master in repository lintian. from 213f030 Avoid false positive for link to license new 10d51c2 Avoid false positives in spelling-error-in-{binary,manpage} for "CAs" which was an

[lintian] 01/01: Avoid false positives in spelling-error-in-{binary, manpage} for "CAs" which was annoying for cryptographic software. (Closes: #871791)

This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. lamby pushed a commit to branch master in repository lintian. commit 10d51c29cbd8c065b3f1544fc5214570c96ef395 Author: Chris Lamb Date: Sat Aug 12 13:39:14 2017 -0400 Avoid false positives in spelling-error-in-{binary,manpa

Processed: Re: lintian: spelling-error-in-{binary, manpage} "CAs Case" annoying for cryptographic software

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 871791 + pending Bug #871791 [lintian] lintian: spelling-error-in-{binary,manpage} "CAs Case" annoying for cryptographic software Added tag(s) pending. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 871791:

Bug#871791: lintian: spelling-error-in-{binary, manpage} "CAs Case" annoying for cryptographic software

tags 871791 + pending thanks Fixed in Git: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=10d51c29cbd8c065b3f1544fc5214570c96ef395 Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-

Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:48:08AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > ... > > On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 20:26:41 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: > > > Also, where signature files are desired, I think it would be > beneficial to > > > also accept binary

Bug#871956: lintian: false positive: binary-file-built-without-LFS-support on x32

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.52 Severity: normal Hi! For all 32-bit architectures lintian complains if functions using off_t instead of off64_t are used. On legacy architectures, this is indeed a good check, as for old ABI compatibility reasons sizeof(off_t) is only 4. However, new 32-bit archi

Bug#871957: [uscan] orig-tarball-missing-upstream-signature should exclude repacks

Package: lintian Version: 2.5.52 Severity: normal Upstream does not sign my repacks :o). Please don't trigger orig-tarball-missing-upstream-signature if the version contains +ds, +debian, or +dfsg. Cheers, -- Alexandre Viau av...@debian.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signatu

Processed: retitle 871957 to [lintian] orig-tarball-missing-upstream-signature should exclude repacks

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > retitle 871957 [lintian] orig-tarball-missing-upstream-signature should > exclude repacks Bug #871957 [lintian] [uscan] orig-tarball-missing-upstream-signature should exclude repacks Changed Bug title to '[lintian] orig-tarball-missing-upstream-

Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

Paul Hardy writes: > Osamu: I did not mean just accept one format--I meant accept both ".asc" > and ".sig" files for ".changes", ".dsc", and uscan files. I suppose all > three manuals you mentioned could be modified to document this. > I had not brought this up until the latest lintian check on

Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

Russ, On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > Paul Hardy writes: > > > Osamu: I did not mean just accept one format--I meant accept both ".asc" > > and ".sig" files for ".changes", ".dsc", and uscan files. I suppose all > > three manuals you mentioned could be modified to docume

Processed: Re: [lintian] orig-tarball-missing-upstream-signature should exclude repacks

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 871957 + pending Bug #871957 [lintian] [lintian] orig-tarball-missing-upstream-signature should exclude repacks Added tag(s) pending. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 871957: https://bugs.debi

Bug#871957: [lintian] orig-tarball-missing-upstream-signature should exclude repacks

tags 871957 + pending thanks Thanks for the report. This was fixed a little while ago in Git: https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=8914bb025f975e4a5584a3a0203cf808f3d0a430 Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris