[SCM] Debian package checker branch, master, updated. 1.24.4-57-gcfdcbc8
The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
commit 76772119eeefb85b61d579fac85019312b054420
Author: Jordà Polo <jorda@ettin.org>
Date: Mon Jul 28 08:53:26 2008 +0200
Upgrade "*-package-should-be-*" tags to certain
We can assume that packages with a particular affix (-doc, -perl, python-,
etc.) contain something related to their name. Suggested by Marc 'HE'
Brockschmidt.
diff --git a/checks/fields.desc b/checks/fields.desc
index f8f5ae1..3833a73 100644
--- a/checks/fields.desc
+++ b/checks/fields.desc
@@ -942,14 +942,14 @@ Info: The Dm-Upload-Allowed field in this package is set to something
Tag: doc-package-should-be-section-doc
Type: warning
Severity: normal
-Certainty: possible
+Certainty: certain
Info: This package has a name suggesting that it contains only
documentation. If so, it should be in section "doc".
Tag: python-package-should-be-section-python
Type: warning
Severity: normal
-Certainty: possible
+Certainty: certain
Info: This package has a name suggesting that it is a Python extension or
part of the Python environment. If so, it should be in section
"python".
@@ -957,21 +957,21 @@ Info: This package has a name suggesting that it is a Python extension or
Tag: perl-package-should-be-section-perl
Type: warning
Severity: normal
-Certainty: possible
+Certainty: certain
Info: This package has a name suggesting that it is a Perl module package.
If so, it should be in section "perl".
Tag: dev-package-should-be-section-libdevel
Type: warning
Severity: normal
-Certainty: possible
+Certainty: certain
Info: This package has a name suggesting that it is a library development
package. If so, it should be in section "libdevel".
Tag: debug-package-should-be-priority-extra
Type: warning
Severity: normal
-Certainty: possible
+Certainty: certain
Info: This package has a name suggesting that it contains detached
debugging symbols. If so, it should have priority "extra" since users
normally do not need such packages.
--
Debian package checker
Reply to: