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

Bug#954798: marked as done (lintian: field-too-long checksums-sha256 error)

Your message dated Tue, 24 Mar 2020 15:48:16 -0700
with message-id <CAFHYt542br0wNxw-sU2A1HeE1=5Sa+M2b3ynzCPQB7LLp88xzg@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#954798: lintian: field-too-long checksums-sha256 error
has caused the Debian Bug report #954798,
regarding lintian: field-too-long checksums-sha256 error
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
954798: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=954798
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: lintian
Version: 2.59.0
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,

   * What led up to the situation?
     sbuild -d unstable for the latest version of my package budgie-extras
     threw a policy errors for this particular field

E: budgie-extras changes: field-too-long Checksums-Sha256 (5432 chars > 5000)
E: budgie-extras buildinfo: field-too-long Checksums-Sha256 (5321 chars > 5000)

   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
     ineffective)?
     sbuild using unstable

Note - no additional binaries were added in this upload - the new
version of lintian threw up these issues
   * What was the outcome of this action?
     E: budgie-extras changes: field-too-long Checksums-Sha256 (5432
chars > 5000)
     E: budgie-extras buildinfo: field-too-long Checksums-Sha256 (5321
chars > 5000)
   * What outcome did you expect instead?
     I wasnt expecting this issue.  It does seem a little restrictive especially
     since the sha256 field checksum for each of the binaries is relatively long
     as you would expect.
     I suppose I could "split" the package rather artificially - maybe
     one python based binaries and one vala based binaries with the current
     budgie-extras package as a "metapackage" - I'm really seeking advice
     how too proceed - I don't want to upload the fixes with these
     lintian errors that break policy

attached are the changes and buildinfo files

Attachment: budgie-extras_0.94.0-1_amd64.buildinfo
Description: Binary data

Attachment: budgie-extras_0.94.0-1_amd64.changes
Description: Binary data


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 9:12 AM Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:04:52AM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> > I will disable this check for buildinfo files later today.
>
> (and .changes please :))

This bug will be closed by the upcoming commit:

    https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/commit/db07aa46bd3afa61cc3508ed4f15c26db98b0c1e

Unfortunately, I mentioned the wrong bug number. Closing manually.

Kind regards
Felix Lechner

--- End Message ---
Reply to: