On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it to
in order to encourage accuracy and for people
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
A quick, much-delayed follow-up to this thread: expo.debian.net shows
lintian output on the web now.
Which version of lintian does it use? It would be nice if it were
pinned to sid or backports. I guess it doesn't process the binary
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Paul,
On 02.08.2011 23:34, Paul Wise wrote:
Which version of lintian does it use? It would be nice if it were
pinned to sid or backports. I guess it doesn't process the binary
packages?
Currently it uses 2.5.1 from Sid. Asheesh installed that
Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
We do have part of the upload on m.d.n, I have a hunch it'd be fairly
simple to actually run Lintian on it, and report the status of the
package.
I second this.
We could have a service where we submit the package. That service will
then run some checks for it. E.g.
On 2011-07-09 10:20 +0200, Reijo Tomperi wrote:
We could have a service where we submit the package. That service will
then run some checks for it. E.g.
- building the package
Automatically running code from random people sounds rather risky to me.
- lintian check.
- install uninstall
Sven Joachim wrote:
And now you're even giving them root rights! I suppose this is out of
the question.
Is it impossible to setup a sandbox where this is done? Isolate it from
everything, except from some trivial output mechanism which will give
the results back to service.
--
Reijo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Sven,
On 09.07.2011 10:36, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2011-07-09 10:20 +0200, Reijo Tomperi wrote:
Automatically running code from random people sounds rather risky to me.
...
And now you're even giving them root rights! I suppose this is out of
* Arno Töll deb...@toell.net, 2011-07-09, 11:13:
Automatically running code from random people sounds rather risky to me.
...
And now you're even giving them root rights! I suppose this is out of
the question.
Well, this is not necessarily a problem. There are enough possibilities
to come
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Karl,
On 08.07.2011 05:49, Karl Goetz wrote:
- The -I and --pedantic options should always be used.
Why is that? the manual entry for --pedantic says
Pedantic tags are Lintian at its most pickiest and
include checks for
Le Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 11:13:53AM +0200, Arno Töll a écrit :
That said, some pedantic tags can probably be ignored but most are
nonetheless still a very helpful addition one better should consider
when packaging software.
Hello everybody,
I would like to add that in my experience, an
Le vendredi 8 juillet 2011 11:13:53, Arno Töll a écrit :
Hi Karl,
On 08.07.2011 05:49, Karl Goetz wrote:
- The -I and --pedantic options should always be used.
Why is that? the manual entry for --pedantic says
Pedantic tags are Lintian at its most pickiest and
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 11:32:20 +0200
Thomas Preud'homme robo...@celest.fr wrote:
Le vendredi 8 juillet 2011 11:13:53, Arno Töll a écrit :
Hi Karl,
On 08.07.2011 05:49, Karl Goetz wrote:
- The -I and --pedantic options should always be used.
Why is that? the manual entry for
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it
to in order to encourage accuracy and for people to actually use
lintian and fix any issues
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it
to in order to
Hi all,
I think the main problem is the default level of warning/error for lintian.
Even for my first package I ran lintian but my package seems to be lintian
clean !!
Now I run lintian with theses parameters : lintian -IivEcm --pedantic
*.changes
It's a but strict but help me find problem.
Paul,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:47:24PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it
to in order to
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote:
Until that happens though I've put together a somewhat lenghty test-script
that I usually run on my resulting packages after they are built as a review
process. And if that fails, I'll report it back to the list like
Hi Paul,
Paul Wise wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it
to in order to encourage accuracy and for people to actually
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 23:36:21 +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
A little heads up; in lintian 2.5.1 and newer you can enable default
settings for some options in your lintianrc (e.g. ~/.lintianrc):
Wow, that's cool -- thanks!
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:05:03 +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote:
Hi Paul,
Paul Wise wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be
lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change
it
to
On 2011-07-08 00:34, Rodolfo kix Garcia wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:05:03 +0200, Benoît Knecht wrote:
Hi Paul,
Paul Wise wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to
Le Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:47:24PM +0200, Paul Wise a écrit :
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it
to in order to encourage
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote:
Le Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 10:47:24PM +0200, Paul Wise a écrit :
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:05:03 +0200
Benoît Knecht benoit.kne...@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi Paul,
Paul Wise wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be
lintian clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually
be lintian clean. If we were to change the RFS template,
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:47:24 +0200
Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean. If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it
to in order to
Hi Paul,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 11:04:49PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote:
Until that happens though I've put together a somewhat lenghty test-script
that I usually run on my resulting packages after they are built as a
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
It is rare to see an RFS that says The package appears to be lintian
clean. and the package (especially binary ones) actually be lintian
clean.
Thanks for raising this topic for discussion.
If we were to change the RFS template, what could we change it to
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 07:27:21 +0200
Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 11:04:49PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Kilian Krause kil...@debian.org
wrote:
Does anyone know the current status of the new mentors.d.n?
Hasn't
28 matches
Mail list logo
