On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 09:30:14PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:48:13AM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> > If a package uses gbp and a deban-branch is specified in d/gbp.conf, then
> > vcswatch should probably be checking that branch. In #886334, it's pointed
> > out
>
Your message dated Sun, 15 Apr 2018 22:04:35 +0100
with message-id
<1523826275.3317874.1338840856.7b4ea...@webmail.messagingengine.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#895758: lintian -- when is a patch a patch (HG)
has caused the Debian Bug report #895758,
regarding Ignore files ending in ".patch_back"
Hi Chris,
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Chris Lamb wrote:
I could have sworn that already not all files in the patch/ directory
trigger such a message. But as I understand you right now, this is not the
case yet. So I am fine with it ...
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. :) Can you rephras
tags 895762 - patch
tags 895762 + moreinfo
thanks
Hi all,
> > If a package uses gbp and a deban-branch is specified in d/gbp.conf, then
> > vcswatch should probably be checking that branch.
[…]
> Think of packages which origin's HEAD is correctly set (so the -b option
> in Vcs-Git is pointless) b
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 895762 - patch
Bug #895762 [lintian] lintian should check if Vcs-Git branch matches d/gbp.conf
branch
Removed tag(s) patch.
> tags 895762 + moreinfo
Bug #895762 [lintian] lintian should check if Vcs-Git branch matches d/gbp.conf
branch
Adde
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 11:48:13AM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> If a package uses gbp and a deban-branch is specified in d/gbp.conf, then
> vcswatch should probably be checking that branch. In #886334, it's pointed
> out
> that vcswatch cannot use gbp.conf since that requires unpacked source.
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.77~bpo9+1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
If a package uses gbp and a deban-branch is specified in d/gbp.conf, then
vcswatch should probably be checking that branch. In #886334, it's pointed out
that vcswatch cannot use gbp.conf since that requires unpacked source. S
Hi Thorsten,
> I could have sworn that already not all files in the patch/ directory
> trigger such a message. But as I understand you right now, this is not the
> case yet. So I am fine with it ...
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean here. :) Can you rephrase?
Best wishes,
--
,'
Hi Chris,
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Chris Lamb wrote:
This might be a language thing but I would not know what "patch
back" would mean out of context. Indeed, even when I am pretty
sure what you are trying to achieve (temporarily ignore a patch?)
yes, thats what I wanted.
I could have sworn that a
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> retitle 895758 Ignore files ending in ".patch_back" in
> patch-file-present-but-not-mentioned-in-series
Bug #895758 [lintian] lintian -- when is a patch a patch (HG)
Changed Bug title to 'Ignore files ending in ".patch_back" in
patch-file-presen
retitle 895758 Ignore files ending in ".patch_back" in
patch-file-present-but-not-mentioned-in-series
thanks
Hi Thorsten,
> W: libosmo-sccp source: patch-file-present-but-not-mentioned-in-series
> 02_set_version_explicitly.patch_back
This might be a language thing but I would not know w
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.80
Severity: wishlist
My outreachy mentee renamed an old patch to:
02_set_version_explicitly.patch_back
lintian complained about that with:
W: libosmo-sccp source: patch-file-present-but-not-mentioned-in-series
02_set_version_explicitly.patch_back
I would like
lintian_2.5.82~bpo9+1_sourceupload.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
lintian_2.5.82~bpo9+1.dsc
lintian_2.5.82~bpo9+1.tar.xz
lintian_2.5.82~bpo9+1_amd64.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 895674 + pending
Bug #895674 [src:lintian] lintian: maybe-not-arch-all-binnmuable emitted for (=
${source:Version})
Added tag(s) pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
895674: https://bugs.
tags 895674 + pending
thanks
> I guess I'd want to know if the source format were not 3.0 (quilt) but
> that's a rare enough issue that it's probably not worth the noise
Indeed. Whilst we have things like:
unknown-source-format
unsupported-source-format
missing-debian-source-format
... I
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Can you update us on the status of this issue? Did we resolve it already
> or do you have more patches ready to roll soon? :)
Gentle ping on this? I do remember you had some patches queued up,
I just hope we/I haven't neglected them somewhere...
Regards,
--
,''`.
16 matches
Mail list logo