tag 873520 - wontfix
thanks
Chris Lamb wrote:
> (Is there some way we can detect the cowbuilder use-case? I do not use
> that tool so don't know what the true situation is there.)
Ping on this?
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org 🍥 chris-lamb
Hi Jeremy,
> > However, unless I'm missing something this would mean that every
> > time you built a package locally as part of regular development it
> > would emit this tag.
>
> I don't see that as a problem, but I really don't like seeing packages
> with UNRELEASED changelogs in Debian.
Thank
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Chris Lamb wrote:
> However, unless I'm missing something this would mean that every
> time you built a package locally as part of regular development it
> would emit this tag.
I don't see that as a problem, but I really don't like seeing packages
with UNRELEASED
tags 873520 + patch wontfix
thanks
Hi,
> lintian: Check for bad-distribution in debian/changelog too
Patch attached (see below).
However, unless I'm missing something this would mean that every
time you built a package locally as part of regular development it
would emit this tag.
I think this
Hey Jeremy,
> I was surprised to see that pyjunitxml 0.6-1.2 was accepted into
> Debian unstable with its debian/changelog still set to UNRELEASED. I
> guess the uploader managed to generate a valid .changes file.
I would be interested to know the story there!
> lintian already has a check for b
Source: lintian
Version: 2.5.52
I was surprised to see that pyjunitxml 0.6-1.2 was accepted into
Debian unstable with its debian/changelog still set to UNRELEASED. I
guess the uploader managed to generate a valid .changes file.
https://tracker.debian.org/news/859782
lintian already has a check f
6 matches
Mail list logo
