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

Bug#1111051: RFS: inspector/0.2.0-1 [ITP] -- GTK4 programme that gives information about your system



Control: tags -1 +moreinfo

I am not a Debian Developer (DD) (and can never be) and have no ability to
upload your package, sorry. This review is for your information with no
requirement to act upon it.

Seyed,

Review of upload: 2025-08-14 07:42

Test 1 (reproducibility): Information only, not a blocker

* Good

Test 2 (pbuilder build): Information only

* Good

Test 3 (pbuilder build --twice): Information only

* Good

Test 4 (sbuild): Information only

Lintian:

W: inspector: no-manual-page [usr/bin/inspector]
N: 
N:   Each binary in /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /bin, /sbin or /usr/games should have
N:   a manual page
N:   
N:   Note that though the man program has the capability to check for several
N:   program names in the NAMES section, each of these programs should have its
N:   own manual page (a symbolic link to the appropriate manual page is
N:   sufficient) because other manual page viewers such as xman or tkman don't
N:   support this.
N:   
N:   If the name of the manual page differs from the binary by case, man may be
N:   able to find it anyway; however, it is still best practice to match the
N:   exact capitalization of the executable in the manual page.
N:   
N:   If the manual pages are provided by another package on which this package
N:   depends, Lintian may not be able to determine that manual pages are
N:   available. In this case, after confirming that all binaries do have manual
N:   pages after this package and its dependencies are installed, please add a
N:   Lintian override.
N: 
N:   Please refer to Manual pages (Section 12.1) in the Debian Policy Manual
N:   for details.
N: 
N:   Visibility: warning
N:   Show-Always: no
N:   Check: documentation/manual
N:   Renamed from: binary-without-manpage
N: 
N:
I: inspector source: quilt-patch-missing-description
[debian/patches/fix_inspector_permission.patch]
N: 
N:   quilt patch files should start with a description of patch. All lines
N:   before the start of the patch itself are considered part of the
N:   description. You can edit the description with quilt header -e when the
N:   patch is at the top of the stack.
N:   
N:   As well as a description of the purpose and function of the patch, the
N:   description should ideally contain author information, a URL for the bug
N:   report (if any), Debian or upstream bugs fixed by it, upstream status, the
N:   Debian version and date the patch was first included, and any other
N:   information that would be useful if someone were investigating the patch
N:   and underlying problem. Please consider using the DEP 3 format for this
N:   information.
N: 
N:   Please refer to https://dep-team.pages.debian.net/deps/dep3/ for details.
N: 
N:   Visibility: info
N:   Show-Always: no
N:   Check: debian/patches/quilt

Test 5 (ratt): Information only, not a blocker

Note: Possible false positives.

Test 6 (debian/watch): Information only

* Good

Test 7 (licenserecon): Information only

philwyett@ks-tarkin:~/build/inspector-0.2.0$ lrc
en: Versions: licenserecon '6.0'  licensecheck '3.3.9-1'

Parsing Source Tree  ....
Reading d/copyright  ....
Running licensecheck ....

d/copyright      | licensecheck

GPL-3+           | GPL-3             snap/snapcraft.yaml

Summary
=======

Test 4:

A couple of lintian issues you may wish to look at.

Test 7:

You may wish to leave this warning or add to 'debian/lrc.config' so that it is
ignored by future runs of 'lrc' against the package.

Tags
====

If a 'moreinfo' tag has been added to your RFS bug. You can remove the tag using
the line below at the top of a reply that is supplying information and/or
indicating a new upload.

Control: tags -1 -moreinfo

Regards

Phil

-- 

Blog: https://blog.kathenas.org

Buy me a coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg

GPG Fingerprint: 70A0 AC45 AC77 9EFE 84F6 3AED 724A A9B5 2F02 4C8B

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: