Bug#616493: lintian: Should know about the Multi-Arch field
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2011-03-04 23:05, Raphaël Hertzog wrote:
> Package: lintian
> Version: 2.5.0~rc1
> Severity: normal
> User: debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: multiarch
>
> While building my multi-arch dpkg I noted this:
> I: dpkg: unknown-field-in-control multi-arch
> I: dselect: unknown-field-in-control multi-arch
>
> Lintian should learn about this field and not complain if it contains
> one of the allowed values (no, foreign, allowed, same).
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MultiarchSpec
>
> [...]
>
Hi
I have added Multi-Arch to the list of known binary fields. I assumed
it did not apply to udebs, changes and source packages, please correct
me if I am wrong here.
I also included a sanity check of the values of the field (one of the
four listed in your email in all lowercase). I have not added any
sanity (cross-)check for multi-arch vs. content/architecture, so Lintian
will (at least for now) happily accept Architecture: all with
Multi-Arch: foreign (or whatever). I am keeping this bug open to track
the status of such additional checks.
~Niels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=kRyM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: