Bug#253405: Add kfreebsd-i386 and knetbsd-i386 to arch check
Package: lintian
Version: 1.23.0
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
See subject. Patch attached.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.26-1-k7
Locale: LANG=ca_ES@euro, LC_CTYPE=ca_ES@euro (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)
diff -ur lintian-1.23.0.old/checks/common_data.pm lintian-1.23.0/checks/common_data.pm
--- lintian-1.23.0.old/checks/common_data.pm 2004-04-26 02:20:54.000000000 +0200
+++ lintian-1.23.0/checks/common_data.pm 2004-06-09 10:24:00.000000000 +0200
@@ -13,8 +13,9 @@
# simple defines for commonly needed data
%known_archs = map { $_ => 1 }
- ('alpha', 'arm', 'hppa', 'hurd-i386', 'i386', 'ia64', 'mips', 'mipsel',
- 'm68k', 'powerpc', 's390', 'sh', 'sparc', 'any', 'all');
+ ('alpha', 'arm', 'hppa', 'hurd-i386', 'i386', 'ia64', 'kfreebsd-i386',
+ 'knetbsd-i386', 'mips', 'mipsel', 'm68k', 'powerpc', 's390', 'sh',
+ 'sparc', 'any', 'all');
%known_sections = map { $_ => 1 }
('admin', 'base', 'comm', 'devel', 'doc', 'editors', 'electronics',
diff -ur lintian-1.23.0.old/checks/fields.desc lintian-1.23.0/checks/fields.desc
--- lintian-1.23.0.old/checks/fields.desc 2004-05-01 02:31:41.000000000 +0200
+++ lintian-1.23.0/checks/fields.desc 2004-06-09 10:24:41.000000000 +0200
@@ -60,10 +60,10 @@
Tag: unknown-architecture
Type: warning
Info: In addition to the special values `all' and `any', the architecture
- names alpha, arm, hppa, hurd-i386, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc,
- s390, sh, and sparc are currently in use. The special value `source' is
- only used in .changes files and does not make sense in a binary package or
- a .dsc file.
+ names alpha, arm, hppa, hurd-i386, i386, ia64, kfreebsd-i386, knetbsd-i386,
+ m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sh, and sparc are currently in use. The
+ special value `source' is only used in .changes files and does not make sense
+ in a binary package or a .dsc file.
Tag: too-many-architectures
Type: error
Reply to: