Please see this website.
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/groff-message
On top in the yellow box there at the end of that box is a HTML snippet.
I assume it is not intended to look like this, right?
Hello,
I'm an upstream maintainer and someone who do support the packaging
process on the site of Debian pointed me [1] to an lintian message.
{
"type": "failure",
"message": "groff-message 734: bad argument name 'P'
[usr/share/man/man1/backintime-config.1.gz:1]"
}
The
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> # Fix typo and grammar
> retitle 1028959 lintian: Weird very-long-line-length-in-source-file false
> positive despite no long line in file
Bug #1028959 [lintian] lintian: Weird very-long-line-length-in-source-file
false positve due no long line
Hi,
Axel Beckert wrote:
> Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> > I feel significant changes have been made on the git HEAD and a new lintian
> > release would be a good idea.
>
> Definitely. Also because I consider it to be (close to) a toolchain
> package. It's though (luckily ) not on
>
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #1028274 [lintian] lintian: Warning in processable […].dsc: Error open (<)
on '[…].orig.tar.gz.asc': No such file or directory at
/usr/share/perl5/Path/Tiny.pm line 2419.
Added tag(s) pending.
--
1028274:
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #1028975 [lintian] allegedly, tar warnings are not errors
Added tag(s) pending.
--
1028975: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1028975
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Axel Beckert pushed to branch master at lintian / lintian
Commits:
2348bca3 by Axel Beckert at 2023-01-16T01:10:28+01:00
inconsistent-appstream-metadata-license: Versions with trailing .0
are equivalent to versions without
Fixes false positives as the Debian Copyright Format 1.0 explicitly
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #1002053 [lintian] lintian: false positive
inconsistent-appstream-metadata-license (gpl-2.0+ != gpl-2+)
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #1002053 to the same tags previously set
--
1002053:
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #1026920 [lintian] New upstream version of file/libmagic breaks autopkgtest
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #1026920 to the same tags previously set
--
1026920: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026920
Debian Bug Tracking
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #1014956 [lintian] More understandable text for
inconsistent-appstream-metadata-license tag
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #1014956 to the same tags previously set
--
1014956: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1014956
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 + pending
Bug #1026920 [lintian] New upstream version of file/libmagic breaks autopkgtest
Added tag(s) pending.
--
1026920: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1026920
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Control: tag -1 + pending
Hi Christoph,
Christoph Biedl wrote:
> So this should do the trick, worked for me:
>
> --- a/lib/Lintian/Index/FileTypes.pm
> +++ b/lib/Lintian/Index/FileTypes.pm
> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ sub add_file_types {
> my @files = grep { $_->is_file } @{$self->sorted_list};
>
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> tags 1014956 + confirmed pending
Bug #1014956 [lintian] More understandable text for
inconsistent-appstream-metadata-license tag
Added tag(s) confirmed and pending.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 + confirmed pending
Bug #1002053 [lintian] lintian: false positive
inconsistent-appstream-metadata-license (gpl-2.0+ != gpl-2+)
Added tag(s) pending and confirmed.
--
1002053: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1002053
Debian Bug Tracking
Control: tag -1 + confirmed pending
Hi Nicholas and Soren,
Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> Gpl-2+ (used in d/copyright) is equivalent to gpl-2.0+ used in
> appstream metadata, so this is a false positive.
Correct, as
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 pending
Bug #1025868 [src:lintian] lintian autopkgtest fails on all but amd64:
x86_64-linux-gnu expected
build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/desktop/gnome/gir/gir/generic.t
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #1025868 to the same tags previously
Control: tag -1 + pending
Hi,
TL;DR:
The in-sbin-confusion-in-elf test in Lintian's test suite is broken
beyond repair: Lintian's arm64 result (which failed the test) is
actually the correct result, and the amd64 result (which passed the
test) is wrong due false negatives which lintian has no
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 + pending
Bug #1025868 [src:lintian] lintian autopkgtest fails on all but amd64:
x86_64-linux-gnu expected
build-and-evaluate-test-packages/eval/checks/desktop/gnome/gir/gir/generic.t
Added tag(s) pending.
--
1025868:
Control: tag -1 wontfix
Hi,
Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> I recently was interested in solving Lintian errors on FPC and
> friends and got pointed to this ticket.
I just checked
https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=2022+path%3Adebian%2Fsource%2Ftimestamps=1
and it seems that exactly 2 source
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 wontfix
Bug #825222 [lintian] lintian: please allow debian/source/timestamps in
unknown-file-in-debian-source
Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #825222 to the same tags previously set
--
825222: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825222
On Jan 15, Axel Beckert wrote:
> I tend to ignore any tar STDERR output saying "tar: Ignoring" as
> solution for this issue. Do you think that should suffice?
Looks like a good start.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi Marco,
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> tar complains to stderr about features of archives that it does not
> understand, but the maintainer says that this is all right and consumers
> of tar's output need to deal with it (see #1028970 for details).
Legit IMHO. Thanks for the bug report.
> How to
Hi,
[This mail is a side-effect of trying to fix the remaining part of the
RC bug #1025868 against lintian.]
I'm thinking about retiring the tag bin-sbin-mismatch due difficult to
solve false positive (and currently triggering an RC bug).
It has been introduced in #930702 and sounded like a
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 1028975 with 1028970
Bug #1028975 [lintian] allegedly, tar warnings are not errors
1028975 was not blocked by any bugs.
1028975 was not blocking any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 1028975: 1028970
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please
Package: lintian
Version: 2.115.3
Severity: normal
Control: block -1 by #1028970
tar complains to stderr about features of archives that it does not
understand, but the maintainer says that this is all right and consumers
of tar's output need to deal with it (see #1028970 for details).
How to
Package: lintian
Version: 2.115.3+68commits+git091d167f6
Severity: normal
When running against BackupPC, lintian emits this tag:
X: backuppc source: very-long-line-length-in-source-file 535 > 512
[lib/BackupPC/CGI/GeneralInfo.pm:52]
But there is no such long line in that file:
$ cat -n
26 matches
Mail list logo
