Hi Jonas and Vasudev,
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Vasudev Kamath (2013-06-11 05:31:32)
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org> wrote:
> > > I: editorconfig-core source:
> > > binary-control-field-duplicates-source field "section" in package
> > > libeditorconfig0
> >
> > This warning was purposefully left open because otherwise d-shlibmove
> > which is used to move libraries to destination will fail. I will see
> > if I can patch up d-shlibs for this.
I see. I've no experience with d-shlibs, so ignore that comment since
you seem know more details.
> > > And nice to have would be:
> > >
> > > P: editorconfig-core source:
> > > package-lacks-versioned-build-depends-on-debhelper 8
> >
> > As per Jonas explanation this is unversioned by CDBS to allow easy
> > backporting to stable and oldstable (if required) as we are not
> > forcing any specific version of debhelper. According to Jonas lintian
> > should increase minimum version in this warning to 9 as they did it
> > previously as 7. But we didn't file a bug against lintian.
>
> I deliberately ignore that one (and the previous one about debhelper 7)
> for ages, not even bothering to run around adding ignore files for it in
> hundreds of packages, as I believe the underlying reasoning of it to be
> flawed.
Ok, I'll definitive leave that decision to Jonas. He seems to have a
strong opinion about it. :-)
> Also, what version of lintian produced that one?
2.5.13, the newest version available in Sid.
> I believe lintian maintainers have finally dropped it now - or
> lowered it below default noise level of the tool.
The "P:" is for "pedantic". So yes, it's the lowest report level
lintian nows. :-) That's why I also mentioned it just as "nice to
have".
> > > (But solving debug-package-for-multi-arch-same-pkg-not-coinstallable
> > > would include bumping debhelper compatibility to 9, though.)
>
> I suspect not. But let's see about that...
>From my experience with zsh's dbg package it should help. But I didn't
dig too deep in this specific case.
> Thanks a lot for your help, Axel.
Glad you're happy with it. It's a strange feeling to sponsor a package
where also another DD is listed as uploader, because preferences may
collide.
> Would you perhaps be interested in joining us in maintaining this
> package (and others as well)?
You may have noticed that I filed an RFP for editorconfig-el. I may
package that myself, but I'm not yet sure, so I started with an RFP.
I actually stumbled over this bug (#705682) because I stumbled over
upstream's .editorconfig in one of my packages. I then wondered if
there's support for Emacs, which resulted in my editorconfig-el RFP.
Then I looked what's already there and then I found #705682 because
editorconfig was only available on amd64 so far and I wanted to play
with it on i386...
I though suspect tat I'll mostly will be a user of the plugin for
Emacs and not for the command-line tools, so if I join in any
editorconfig packaging it'll likely be the editorconfig-el package.
> I'd love an excuse to collaborate more closely with you :-)
I'm sure we'll find something. And seeing your Perl Team activity, I
guess it'll likely be something Perl based. ;-)
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
`- | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
