On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 13:52 +0100, Steffen Möller wrote: > On 01/01/2011 01:35 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > This is due to the source package having: > > > > Source: paml > > Section: non-free/science > > [...] > > Package: paml-doc > > Architecture: all > > Section: doc > > > > The binary package should be in non-free/doc. > > Fixed in the Debian Med svn now. I'll upload later today.
Thanks. > If I am not errorneous, the assignment of "doc" was happening > by blindly following a note of lintian that requested the > section "doc" for a package name ending with "-doc". I need > to investigate > http://lintian.debian.org/tags/wrong-section-according-to-package-name.html Yeah, lintian could be a little smarter there. I'll open a bug so we don't forget to fix it. > It was not clear to me, that the initial assignment of the non-free > distribution could be removed for individual packages. There's no technical requirement that the component for the source and binary packages be consistent - for instance, a source in main can produce binary packages in contrib, if the dependency on non-free or out-of-archive software is "only" at runtime. The FTP team are aware of the issue, so hopefully we might get better technical solutions in the future. fwiw, running lintian again on the .dsc you uploaded would have produced: E: paml source: section-area-mismatch Package paml-doc highlighting the issue. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
