[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Accepted debputy 0.1.42 (source) into unstable



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2024 18:50:17 +0000
Source: debputy
Architecture: source
Version: 0.1.42
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Debputy Maintainers <debputy@packages.debian.org>
Changed-By: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
Changes:
 debputy (0.1.42) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * LSP/Lint:
     - Fix exception on some syntax errors
     - Add `X?-Ruby-Versions` as a known (obsolete) field
     - Include the final line of context (`debputy lint`-only)
     - Syntax check dependency relation fields
     - Detect incorrect version operators in `Provides`
     - Fix crash on package stanzas without `Package` field
     - Flag usage of `|` in relationship fields that does not
       support it
     - Fix invalid ranges for some checks when using field comments
Checksums-Sha1:
 06d4395ef641ec5f2bcba57b3feecb857bd288f0 2067 debputy_0.1.42.dsc
 e9dee870ff38d952562e2d07be9529abd62fd7bd 437612 debputy_0.1.42.tar.xz
Checksums-Sha256:
 f7ff9183259a3c5ae6acc44a0b7ac5fc33c6b2a0536b659008740b406aa47f42 2067 debputy_0.1.42.dsc
 cef8c01112e77b2e337a0b617a0fbfb0cc6446cd678b448d57e11194229f9ce8 437612 debputy_0.1.42.tar.xz
Files:
 3cefc462bded824008f601f3df55c208 2067 devel optional debputy_0.1.42.dsc
 b311da50bd01db66901a6104431dedaa 437612 devel optional debputy_0.1.42.tar.xz

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQFGBAEBCgAwFiEE9ecZmu9eXGflVYc/dA1oiINl0okFAmaJlDcSHG5pZWxzQHRo
eWtpZXIubmV0AAoJEHQNaIiDZdKJHXIH/RP4DXysWjVFYSRoar0MTzai1v4wDjb8
FeIL2FF76qBnzXFIgg+s0NrRhz9Jx+vtI4LOwqO5jES+ARASNfwtWEtKcRO8lHhf
LUjKhLfPoj72zo3o1R40rifTllI2qXCrtKOfjPeEH2VQZYKG0MS9K5rN7iVcMHK2
I7u+vp0hRISH7beBETZnvmpve5vi6BzsTGp5J02yW+GMsckRtqsD8kKGHgRdclo+
VL6zmB4oDzPWoid5Insdve5plZuPiFrpnEbXEk9E98+/cmTcOsn0yeqpiyFNUHcX
V673pZw7HynpTozwhL+oKr5kNyGqdveol/fNnX5Sutxhvxv1cUfKsiE=
=xaou
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Attachment: pgpHTsWT5SD9k.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: