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

[SCM] Debian package checker branch, master, updated. 2.5.4-164-g4d18116



The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
commit 4d181161b07370afa6682a834d1445b375bec462
Author: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
Date:   Fri Feb 10 11:25:39 2012 +0100

    L::Tags::_record_stats: Count experimental tags separately
    
    Count experimental tags as a separate group of tags.  This fixes an
    issue where Lintian would exit 1 if the only error tags emitted were
    experimental.
    
    Signed-off-by: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>

diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 97b97de..f9710ff 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -272,6 +272,9 @@ lintian (2.5.5) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
       unknown architectures and for "arch:all" packages.
     + [NT] Use a Profile to determine if a tag is suppressed or not.
     + [NT] Handle "pedantic" like the other severities.
+    + [NT] Count experimental tags as a separate group of tags.  This
+      fixes an issue where lintian would exit 1 if the only error
+      tags emitted were experimental.  (Closes: #658971)
   * lib/Util.pm:
     + [NT] Create clean_env function to handle cleaning of the
       environment for children processes and finding a suitable UTF-8
diff --git a/lib/Lintian/Tags.pm b/lib/Lintian/Tags.pm
index 9908c05..fb576d8 100644
--- a/lib/Lintian/Tags.pm
+++ b/lib/Lintian/Tags.pm
@@ -213,13 +213,15 @@ sub _check_overrides {
 sub _record_stats {
     my ($self, $tag, $info, $override) = @_;
     my $stats = $self->{statistics}{$self->{current}};
+    my $code = $info->code;
+    $code = 'X' if $info->experimental;
     if ($override) {
         $stats = $self->{statistics}{$self->{current}}{overrides};
     }
     $stats->{tags}{$tag}++;
     $stats->{severity}{$info->severity}++;
     $stats->{certainty}{$info->certainty}++;
-    $stats->{types}{$info->code}++;
+    $stats->{types}{$code}++;
 }
 
 sub tag {

-- 
Debian package checker


Reply to: