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

Bug#861649: Newer version uploaded



On Wednesday 7 March 2018 19:32:48 CET Tobias Frost wrote:
> But the lintian stuff I complained about is not completly fixed, there
> is even a new tag: 
> I: gudhi source: quilt-patch-missing-description no-external-doc-
> resources.patch
> 
> Please run lintian after every build! Best, include it into pbuilder or
> like! Remember "some sponsors are evil and pedantic [1] when running
> lintian.
> 
> [1]  https://nthykier.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/some-sponsors-are-evil-a
> nd-pedantic/

Ah, I'm sorry; I had accidentally run lintian too unpedantically and
with an older version. I've adopted your suggested routine now. Thanks
a lot!

Some comments/questions on other lintian messages follow.

> I: gudhi source: binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section"
> in package gudhui

Since there's nothing inherent about one of the binary packages being
in the same section as the source, I think it should be OK to keep
this as is. Does that seem OK?

> P: gudhi source: file-contains-trailing-whitespace debian/control (line
> 110)

Fixed.

> P: gudhi source: package-uses-old-debhelper-compat-version 10

Fixed.

> I: gudhi source: quilt-patch-missing-description no-external-doc-
> resources.patch

Fixed.

> W: gudhi source: unnecessary-testsuite-autopkgtest-field

Fixed.

> I: python3-gudhi: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python3/dist-
> packages/gudhi.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so ment meant
> I: python3-gudhi: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python3/dist-
> packages/gudhi.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so preambule preamble
> I: python3-gudhi: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/python3/dist-
> packages/gudhi.cpython-36m-x86_64-linux-gnu.so choosen chosen

I'd prefer to consider these upstream bugs. I can report them, but I
guess it's OK to leave these minor things unpatched?

> W: libgudhi-examples: lib-recommends-documentation recommends:
> libgudhi-doc

I think this is a false report; libgudhi-examples is in fact not a
library package.

> I: libgudhi-doc: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration

Fixed.

> I: gudhui: spelling-error-in-binary usr/bin/gudhui preambule preamble

See above.

> P: gudhui: no-upstream-changelog

Upstream doesn't supply one.

> W: gudhui: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/gudhui

This is a GUI tool without an upstream manpage. Should I make a stub
one?

> Please review d/copyright. I found at least one undocumented file which
> is licensed Apache 2.0 and another one under LGPL3+. Neither are in 
> d/copyright.

I'm looking into this, and will get back to you.


 Best,
 Gard
 


Reply to: