I see what you mean.
Point taken :)
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:43 PM Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hi Mattia,
>
> > Dunno if this is the case, but would be possible to at least keep it for
> > some cases
> […]
>
> Whilst this is certainly possible I just can't shake the feeling that
> this tag isn't actuall
Hi Mattia,
> Dunno if this is the case, but would be possible to at least keep it for
> some cases
[…]
Whilst this is certainly possible I just can't shake the feeling that
this tag isn't actually finding "real" bugs in packages worth of the
investment.
Sure, a typo of 2117 instead of 2017 is ob
Hi Chris,
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 11:00:15AM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote:
> "Fixed" in Git:
>
>
> https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=b82460be905f860ef0b878b4b927c29ae9535566
Dunno if this is the case, but would be possible to at least keep it for
some cases where the am
tags 877766 + pending
thanks
"Fixed" in Git:
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=b82460be905f860ef0b878b4b927c29ae9535566
Regards,
--
,''`.
: :' : Chris Lamb
`. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk
`-
Package: lintian
Version: 2.5.54
Severity: normal
Hi!
The new copyright-year-in-future check is very prone to
false-positives. And I doesn't feel like white-listing context is
the best way to go around this. :/
ISTM that this check should only be performed on the Copyright field
for machine-read
5 matches
Mail list logo
