Bug#1023056: Bug#1014537: unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error

Control: tags 1023056 moreinfo Control: tags 1023057 moreinfo Axel Beckert: Hi Niels, Niels Thykier wrote: I understand that you are unsatisfied with this proposal and that is fair. Thanks. Though from my point of view, your email makes it hard for me to want to engage with you to find a s

Processed: Re: Bug#1014537: unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error

Processing control commands: > tags 1023056 moreinfo Bug #1023056 [lintian] unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error Ignoring request to alter tags of bug #1023056 to the same tags previously set > tags 1023057 moreinfo Bug #1023057 [lintian-brush] unnamed packaging fil

Processed: Re: Bug#1014537: unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error

Processing control commands: > tags 1023056 moreinfo Bug #1023056 [lintian] unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error Added tag(s) moreinfo. > tags 1023057 moreinfo Bug #1023057 [lintian-brush] unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error Added ta

Re: Bug#1014537: unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error

Hi Niels, Thank you for this work. Personally I have only one point I'd like to raise: On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 08:55:38PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > * debian/README.Debian > * debian/TODO > > These have historically been installed into the main package and a note in > debhelper (dh_install

Re: Bug#1014537: unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error

Axel Beckert: Hi, I am looking at making `debian/foo` an error by default in debhelper compat 15 (triggering a warning from compat 14). Uargh, yet another bad decision which makes one want to no more using debhelper. :-( Hi Axel, I understand that you are unsatisfied with this proposal an

Bug#1023056: Bug#1014537: unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error

Hi Niels, Niels Thykier wrote: > I understand that you are unsatisfied with this proposal and that is > fair. Thanks. > Though from my point of view, your email makes it hard for me to want to > engage with you to find a solution that would (ideally) satisfy your desires I'm sorry, but at that

Re: Bug#1014537: unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error

Hi, > I am looking at making `debian/foo` an error by default in debhelper compat > 15 (triggering a warning from compat 14). Uargh, yet another bad decision which makes one want to no more using debhelper. :-( > > > This kind of packaging, with some packaging files under debian/ having an > > >

Re: Bug#1014537: unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error

Control: clone -1 -2 -3 Control: reassign -2 lintian Control: reassign -3 lintian-brush Control: block -3 by -2 Control: block -3 by -1 Control: block -2 by -1 Hi, CC'ing relevant maintainers for clone + reassign for lintian + lintian-brush. I am looking at making `debian/foo` an error by def

Processed: Re: Bug#1014537: unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error

Processing control commands: > clone -1 -2 -3 Bug #1014537 [debhelper] unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error Bug 1014537 cloned as bugs 1023056-1023057 > reassign -2 lintian Bug #1023056 [debhelper] unnamed packaging files in a multibinary package should be an error