Re: Better Lintian checks
On 2016-01-26 12:10, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Sebastiaan Couwenberg <sebastic@xs4all.nl>, 2016-01-26, 07:45:
The use of Multi-Arch: no was suggested by
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/old-style-config-script-multiarch-path.html
The wording is unfortunate.
You should not add "Multi-Arch: no" to the control file, but instead
remove the field, because "no" is the default.
The gdal package didn't have any Multi-Arch control fields.
And most of the time changing multi-archness isn't the correct course
of action anyway...
Yeah, Bastiens reference to the suggestion for the general
old-style-config-script tag should be the way forward.
I just don't have time to fix all reverse dependencies, so I'd like to
keep including gdal-config for the time being.
The reject message
Quoting the reject message would have been helpful...
I guess you're referring to this:
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/mirror/dak.git/tree/daklib/checks.py?id=c51e71bbd9c2#n392
I quoted most of the reject message except the bug number.
The reject in question is here:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-grass-devel/2016-January/042758.html
The speed at which it arrived suggests that it's an auto reject, despite
Bastien saying that it's not.
refers to #768353 which was fixed in November 2014, but the fix is
most likely not available in stable yet,
The version graph says it's fixed in "dose3/3.3~beta1-3 (stable)".
Thanks for the feedback, unfortunately no solution yet.
Kind Regards,
Bas
Reply to: