Re: error messages in the raw lintian.log
Dropping Lucas since we're drifting afield of his original report.
Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> We already do for binary packages; we just don't for source packages.
> I have always wondered what the exact relation between that check and
> dak is.
See check_timestamp in dak/process_unchecked.py (which in general is a
good bit of code to be familiar with).
git clone http://ftp-master.debian.org/git/dak.git to get the repository.
The exact cutoff that dak uses is configurable. The value for Debian is:
FutureTimeTravelGrace 28800; // 8 hours
PastCutoffYear "1984";
> Yes, but maybe the maintainer did *something*. On guile's case, only the
> -1.8 tarball has that problem, 1.6 which is also in sid does have
> correct time stamps. I couldn't find upstream's 1.8 tarball, only the
> ones for the previous releases, so I downloaded the snapshot which has
> 1.8 in its name; as you may guess from my comment, the tarball I
> downloaded also had correct time stamps.
Weird.
> By the way, bit off topic, shouldn't the source-contains-* checks better
> be severity: pedantic? There's no much maintainers can do about those
> but repack the tarball and/or bug upstream, not to mention that they
> usually don't affect the final .deb and when they do another check
> should catch those.
Yes, I think you're right. I'll make that change.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: