On Saturday, 14 October 2017 11:49:59 CET Sean Whitton wrote:
> 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 used
Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 09:10:12PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
>> 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
t
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 09:10:12PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 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
Bill Allombert writes:
> Before we make it a must, is there a lintian test for it ?
There is -- wrong-path-for-interpreter will pick it up. The only allowed
path for Perl is /usr/bin/perl; any other path will already be producing
Lintian warnings.
> How may packages need to be fixed ?
https:/
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
Hi Sean,
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: tag -1 +patch
>
> Hello,
>
> 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 m
On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:49:59AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> control: tag -1 +patch
>
> Hello,
>
> 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
control: tag -1 +patch
Hello,
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 used by ``dpkg``, should have a ``#!`` li
12 matches
Mail list logo
