Hi Axel,
[Thanks for the cc. I am on the list.]
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 4:57 PM Axel Beckert wrote:
>
> JFTR: I strongly disagree. The Certainty was a very helpful decision
> helper for Lintian users who had a gut feeling about a lintian-emitted
> tag being a false positive by seeing how
Hi again,
taking Felix Lechner into Cc.
Axel Beckert wrote:
> to my dismay I discovered that Lintian's Certainty feature has been
> removed.
In addition to that I find it very bold to not even mention that
removal explicitly in the debian/changelog entry:
* Use the "Severity" field in tags
Hi,
to my dismay I discovered that Lintian's Certainty feature has been
removed.
Chris Lamb wrote:
> Controversial opinion
Indeed controversial.
> the "certainty" of tags is of no actionable benefit to either the
> users of Lintian or its developers and should be removed.
JFTR: I strongly
Hi,
> gzip: stdout: Broken pipe
This commit reduces the program error to a misidentification:
https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/5b0bff88afd220ecee71897fa0cb2227f14d10dc
The search should also be restricted to expected locations for
gfortran modules. Please do not close the
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 09:51:51 +
Source: lintian
Binary: lintian
Built-For-Profiles: nocheck
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.57.0~bpo9+1
Distribution: stretch-backports
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Lintian
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 8:03 AM Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>
> field-too-long was added to prevent silliness in the archive. As such, it
> only makes sense for binary control fields and .dsc, nothing else.
Why should fields in buildinfo and changes files be treated
differently from fields
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #954338 [src:lintian] lintian: Remove some '' annotations
Added tag(s) pending.
--
954338: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=954338
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Hi all,
> Totally lintian is wrong here, imho
I think this was a regression in:
https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/commit/14fa5a80bbbf9e8b691bd9b61382d15b33e98b3d
ie. "sub binary" → "sub always" ?
Best wishes,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'`
Totally lintian is wrong here, imho.
field-too-long was added to prevent silliness in the archive. As such, it
only makes sense for binary control fields and .dsc, nothing else.
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, 3:21 pm gregor herrmann, wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.58.0
> Severity: minor
>
>
Package: lintian
Version: 2.58.0
Severity: minor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
With lintian 2.58.0 I got, for the first time, this error:
E: pkg-perl-tools buildinfo: field-too-long Installed-Build-Depends (11190
chars > 5000)
I have no idea what to do with this information,
Source: lintian
Version: 2.58.0
Severity: important
Tags: patch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
lintian fails to build with (DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck and)
DEB_BUILD_PROFILES=nocheck because some packages marked as
'' in Build-Depends are actually needed for building.
Trivial
On 3/20/20 2:15 PM, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 5:57 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>> so please differentiate between Fortran and Modula-2 modules.
>
> I have had some issues differentiating gfortran modules (#948033). In
> which folders do they usually reside,
Hi Matthias,
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 5:57 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> so please differentiate between Fortran and Modula-2 modules.
I have had some issues differentiating gfortran modules (#948033). In
which folders do they usually reside, please?
Also, why are they not all named md.gz, as in
Package: lintian
running lintian on a gcc-10 build, I see
gzip: stdout: Broken pipe
gzip:
/tmp/temp-lintian-lab-i1Mvu3Lp4j/pool/g/gcc-10/libgm2-10-dev_10-20200320-1_amd64_binary/unpacked/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/10/m2/m2cor/Debug.mod:
not in gzip format
and then continues with:
libgm2-10
Processing control commands:
> reassign -1 pkg-perl-tools
Bug #954331 [lintian] lintian: coercion for "original_severity" failed: Unknown
tag severity minor
Bug reassigned from package 'lintian' to 'pkg-perl-tools'.
No longer marked as found in versions lintian/2.58.0.
Ignoring request to alter
Control: reassign -1 pkg-perl-tools
Hi,
> Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Upgrading to version 2.58.0 of lintian renders it totally unusable:
That is not correct. Lintian just fails to work with pkg-perl-tools.
> Lintian::Tag::Info::original_severity(Lintian::Tag::Info=HASH(0x565295307a18),
>
Package: lintian
Version: 2.58.0
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Upgrading to version 2.58.0 of lintian renders it totally unusable:
$ lintian *_amd64.changes --no-tag-display-limit
coercion for "original_severity" failed:
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 09:56:18 +
Source: lintian
Architecture: source
Version: 2.58.0
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Lintian Maintainers
Changed-By: Chris Lamb
Closes: 924449 935706 954146
Your message dated Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:37:19 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#954146: fixed in lintian 2.58.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #954146,
regarding Lintian: false-positive gzip-file-is-not-multi-arch-same-safe
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Your message dated Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:37:19 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#954224: fixed in lintian 2.58.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #954224,
regarding lintian: please dim/color --show-overrides
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:37:19 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#954149: fixed in lintian 2.58.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #954149,
regarding Please add check for executable in /usr/lib/
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt
Your message dated Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:37:19 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#935706: fixed in lintian 2.58.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #935706,
regarding lintian: Make tag certainty a programmatic assessment
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has
Your message dated Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:37:19 +
with message-id
and subject line Bug#924449: fixed in lintian 2.58.0
has caused the Debian Bug report #924449,
regarding lintian: Periodic "out of disk space" errors from lindsay.d.o
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
lintian_2.58.0_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
lintian_2.58.0.dsc
lintian_2.58.0.tar.xz
lintian_2.58.0_amd64.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host usper.debian.org)
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 09:49:33 +
Source: lintian
Binary: lintian
Built-For-Profiles: nocheck
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.57.0~bpo10+1
Distribution: buster-backports
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Lintian
Accepted:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 09:51:51 +
Source: lintian
Binary: lintian
Built-For-Profiles: nocheck
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.57.0~bpo9+1
Distribution: stretch-backports
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debian Lintian
lintian_2.57.0~bpo9+1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
lintian_2.57.0~bpo9+1.dsc
lintian_2.57.0~bpo9+1.tar.xz
lintian_2.57.0~bpo9+1_all.deb
lintian_2.57.0~bpo9+1_amd64.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host
lintian_2.57.0~bpo10+1_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
lintian_2.57.0~bpo10+1.dsc
lintian_2.57.0~bpo10+1.tar.xz
lintian_2.57.0~bpo10+1_all.deb
lintian_2.57.0~bpo10+1_amd64.buildinfo
Greetings,
Your Debian queue daemon (running on host
28 matches
Mail list logo
