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

Re: shc -- #335278 broken packaging -- non-DD NMU prepared

On Friday 14 July 2006 10:08, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:34:20AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > > > shc (3.8.6-1) unstable; urgency=low
> > >
> > >          ^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > This is the wrong version number for an NMU anyway.
> >
> > True. Fixed as -0.1. Hm, it would be nice if lintian and linda warn if
> > changelog claims Non-maintainer upload and the debian-revision value is
> > not compliant with the conventions
> They do.  However, since you added yourself as comaintainer (via
> Uploaders:), they didn't actually consider it an NMU.

That also should be catched and warned, since an NMU done by a maintaner makes 
no sense.

> They could check 
> that non-NMU uploads must not say "Non maintainer upload" in the changelog.
>  Appearantly they don't do that.  I think a wishlist bug is in order there.

Well, it makes no difference which case you have. Anyways if you have a 
conflicting declarations for debian-revision value and /Non-maintainer 
upload/i as first changelog entry, lintian&linda should warn about. In fact I 
can see such an attempt in /usr/share/lintian/checks/nmu but it doesn't work 
as expected or at least for me. I'll try to investigate that further.

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 

Reply to: