On Fri, 2020-07-03 at 05:27:46 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> Why did you lower the severity instead of releasing a fix?
As explained, because the severity seemed off. Also because there
are still other regressions being dealt with…
> If version 1.20.3 progresses to testing, Lintian loses its last
Felix Lechner writes:
> Thank you for using such decisive language. My message was exactly about
> that. Please allow me to restate the original question: Is the absence
> of fields in d/test/control such an "obvious packaging bug"?
Yes, I think the presence of an invalid control file in the pac
Hi,
Here is quick heads up that Lintian has a new output mode for
standalone HTML pages. The mode will be used with Gitlab Pages to
offer graphical Lintian results in the majority of Gitlab CI
instances.
The functionality may reduce user reliance on lintian.d.o.
In Lintian, the new mode is invo
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 - pending
Bug #963939 [lintian] lintian: breakout-link wrongly reported against jar files
Removed tag(s) pending.
--
963939: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=963939
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tags -1 - pending
Hi Chris,
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 1:02 PM Chris Lamb wrote:
>
> Please go ahead.
https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/8016b7d681f5b1e5a1864ac7d88da4c29fc73af7
I'll try to remember to reopen if you release before this is resolved.
Kind regards
Felix L
Felix Lechner wrote:
> > I don't think this warning applies to architecture independent jar files.
>
> After speaking with others about these links, I am not sure our
> existing fix is appropriate. I think it should be reverted until we
> hear from Emmanuel.
Please go ahead.
Regards,
--
Hi Chris,
> I don't think this warning applies to architecture independent jar files.
After speaking with others about these links, I am not sure our
existing fix is appropriate. I think it should be reverted until we
hear from Emmanuel.
Kind regards
Felix Lechner
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:11 PM Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> The affected pathnames contain symlink loops, which I'd consider to be
> erroneous constructs, and I don't see why we'd want to allow these. In
> this case this seem just like an incorrect error message. I've updated
> this locally now
Hi Russ,,
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 8:25 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> dpkg has been picking up basic sanity checks for obvious packaging bugs
Thank you for using such decisive language. My message was exactly
about that. Please allow me to restate the original question: Is the
absence of fields in d/
9 matches
Mail list logo