Re: Better Lintian checks

2016-01-26 Thread Sascha Steinbiss
Hi Bastien, > Newer unstable Lintian version check now package testsuite for licence > problems/missing source Just FYI, the potential 'source-is-missing' false positive mentioned at the beginning of #798900 [1] still exists, regarding the automatic flagging of JS files with lines > 512 chars as

Re: Better Lintian checks

2016-01-26 Thread Bas Couwenberg
On 2016-01-26 14:41, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Bas Couwenberg , 2016-01-26, 12:17: The use of Multi-Arch: no was suggested by https://lintian.debian.org/tags/old-style-config-script-multiarch-path.html The wording is unfortunate. You should not add "Multi-Arch: no" to the control file, but instead

Re: Better Lintian checks

2016-01-26 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Bas Couwenberg , 2016-01-26, 12:17: The use of Multi-Arch: no was suggested by https://lintian.debian.org/tags/old-style-config-script-multiarch-path.html The wording is unfortunate. You should not add "Multi-Arch: no" to the control file, but instead remove the field, because "no" is the

Re: Better Lintian checks

2016-01-26 Thread Bas Couwenberg
On 2016-01-26 12:10, Jakub Wilk wrote: * Sebastiaan Couwenberg , 2016-01-26, 07:45: The use of Multi-Arch: no was suggested by https://lintian.debian.org/tags/old-style-config-script-multiarch-path.html The wording is unfortunate. You should not add "Multi-Arch: no" to the control file, but

Re: Better Lintian checks

2016-01-26 Thread Bastien ROUCARIES
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote: > On 25-01-16 19:47, Bastien Roucaries wrote: >> I expect more problems detected in the next few days > > I guess the autorejects for Multi-Arch: no are among those problems. > The use of Multi-Arch: no was suggested by > > https://l

Re: Better Lintian checks

2016-01-26 Thread Jakub Wilk
* Sebastiaan Couwenberg , 2016-01-26, 07:45: The use of Multi-Arch: no was suggested by https://lintian.debian.org/tags/old-style-config-script-multiarch-path.html The wording is unfortunate. You should not add "Multi-Arch: no" to the control file, but instead remove the field, because "no"

Re: Better Lintian checks

2016-01-25 Thread Sebastiaan Couwenberg
On 25-01-16 19:47, Bastien Roucaries wrote: > I expect more problems detected in the next few days I guess the autorejects for Multi-Arch: no are among those problems. The use of Multi-Arch: no was suggested by https://lintian.debian.org/tags/old-style-config-script-multiarch-path.html The re

Better Lintian checks

2016-01-25 Thread Bastien Roucaries
Hi, Newer unstable Lintian version check now package testsuite for licence problems/missing source For instance icedove and iceweasel are now hit by good not evil problem. I expect more problems detected in the next few days Bastien -- Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuille