On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 20:32:43 +0200 Jakub Wilk wrote: > * Francesco Poli <invernomuto@paranoici.org>, 2012-09-11, 19:51: > >>>>since dh_installchangelog skips empty upsteam changelog files, so > >>>>the pedantic tag should be not shown in that situation. > > > >Hello, I've just been hit by this bug. > > > >I was running lintian on a package where the upstream changelog is > >present but empty and I failed to understand how I could fix the > >problem with the package, until I realized that the lintian complaint > >was actually a false positive. > > Why was it a false positive? Was it because it was the very first > upstream release, and as such didn't have any changes any yet? No, it was not the first upstream release. Apparently upstream authors do not care about writing a changelog and the upstream archive just includes an empty (zero length) file named ChangeLog (probably because GNU autotools create a number of empty files with standard names and the upstream authors didn't care to delete unused ones). In this case, dh_installchangelogs does not install the upstream changelog into the package build directories (and rightfully so, I think). But lintian complains that the Debian package does not include the upstream changelog. Do you disagree that this is a false positive for the lintian check? Why? What should the Debian package maintainer do in this case, in order to please lintian? Fake an upstream changelog with information collected elsewhere? Repack the upstream archive just to drop an empty file? Could you please clarify? Thanks. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpSEppPHgZGC.pgp
Description: PGP signature