On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 02:08:37PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Hello Bill,
>
> On Mon, Nov 27 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
>
> > Before we make it a must, is there a lintian test for it ?
>
> I am not sure.
>
> > How may packages need to be fixed ?
>
> I don't think we need to worry about this
-=| Bill Allombert, 27.11.2017 21:10:12 +0100 |=-
> Before we make it a must, is there a lintian test for it ?
(Disclaimer: I am not an expert on lintian internals.)
I looked at lintian's collection/scripts file (lines 39-66) and there
doesn't seem to be such a check.
The lines above serve to c
Hello Bill,
On Mon, Nov 27 2017, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Before we make it a must, is there a lintian test for it ?
I am not sure.
> How may packages need to be fixed ?
I don't think we need to worry about this because it is already a 'must'
in the Perl policy, and it has been for some time.
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:34:15AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Sean Whitton dijo [Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:49:59AM -0700]:
> > I am seeking seconds for the following patch to close this bug, which I
> > think is uncontroversial at this point.
> >
> > > @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ All command scripts, inclu
Sean Whitton dijo [Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:49:59AM -0700]:
> I am seeking seconds for the following patch to close this bug, which I
> think is uncontroversial at this point.
>
> > @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ All command scripts, including the package maintainer
> > scripts inside the
> > package and us
5 matches
Mail list logo
