Hi guys, just a few additional comments 2015-06-09 9:14 GMT+01:00 Charles Plessy <ple...@debian.org>:
> Le Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 12:38:31AM -0700, Afif Elghraoui a écrit : > > > > I was able to build it and clean it up a little more, but the package > still > > has some lint: > > Hi Afif, thanks a lot for all this work. > > > W: python-pysam source: dep5-copyright-license-name-not-unique > (paragraph at > > line 40) > > > > I'm actually not sure what to do about this one. > > Try public-domain instead of PublicDomain. "public-domain" is a special > case > in the machine-readable specification, so if the Lintian warning stays, I > would > consider it a false positive. > > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ > > This is one of these weird lintian warnings that popped up recently. Seems that you can no longer define a License twice in d/copyright. I believe bug reports have been sent about the rationales behind this. > I: ...hardening-no-fortify-functions... > > > > I think these are false positives since the CPPFLAGS for fortification > look > > like they're correctly set as I watch the package build. > > I have seen such apparent false positives in other packages. If you have > time, > maybe it is worth asking for comments on the debian-mentors mailing list ? > +1 > > I: ...spelling-error-in-binary... > > > > This is maybe not worth fixing. > > Maybe the easiest way to get rid of it is a pull request to upstream on > GitHub ? > > Happened to me a few times, each time I ended up sending a patch upstream. It's up to you to decide whether you want to carry on a patch downstream just to fix such an inoffensive bug. I personally did not care to do so. Best regards, Ghislain
