Bug#861649: Newer version uploaded
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:18:32AM +0100, Gard Spreemann wrote:
> 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?
You do not need to specify it for binaries when it is in the same section as the
source. So all "section: math" of the binary packages could go.
But as it is only "informational" you can decide yourself whether you
want to keep ti
> > 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?
Again a personal style thing... I usually make a patch for upstream,
asking to merge it and as then I'd already have the patch then I
also apply it to the Debian package.
But It's ok just to send the patch upstream asking to merge it.
> > 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.
Ok; IMHO it shouls be only a "Suggest" (not "Recommend") here.
>
> > 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.
yepp, no need to fix that.
> > W: gudhui: binary-without-manpage usr/bin/gudhui
>
> This is a GUI tool without an upstream manpage. Should I make a stub
> one?
We usually try to have manpages for every binary. So it would be great
if you could make a manpage for it.
> > 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.
OK.
>
> Best,
> Gard
>
>
>
>
>
Reply to: