On 03/09/2018 09:38 AM, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 09:55:06AM +0200, Timo Aaltonen wrote: >> On 09.03.2018 08:00, Chris Lamb wrote: >>> Version: 2018.4-1 >>> Timestamp: 2018-03-06 19:36:05.059079+00:00 >>> Takes over more then ten packages but gives not the slightest hint that >>> this is correct >> Hint like what, and for whom, exactly? Upstream merged all the separate >> protocol packages in one: > > The changelog is a place to document what and sometimes why something > changed. In this case it just tells us this package is pristine. As it > takes over existing stuff this is obviously not correct, it got some > kind of a history. > >>> Uses a weird mix of package styles: >>> W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff >>> attic/bigreqsproto/docbook.am >>> W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff >>> attic/bigreqsproto/specs/Makefile.am >>> W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff >>> attic/fontsproto/docbook.am >>> W: xorgproto source: patch-system-but-direct-changes-in-diff >>> attic/fontsproto/specs/Makefile.am >> That's because packaging is based on upstream git plus source format 1.0 >> (like ~all xorg-team packages are), and the tarball doesn't ship these. >> But whatever, I've removed them from the packaging branch. > > Well, lintian thinks this is fishy. So please do something against such > warnings (and also the one error!). In this case I don't see why this > can't be a 3.0 package, as it even is setup to use a quilt patch series. > Just because lintian thinks this is fishy doesn't mean humans can't disagree. This warning applies to hundreds of packages in the archive. Why this is used as justification for a reject is beyond me.
Cheers, Julien
