Re: lintian and new python policy

2001-10-29 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
On 29-Oct-2001 Tom Cato Amundsen wrote: > Has anyone started modifying lintian? If I remember correctly, > packages that generate lintian errors will be rejected... > anyone is me, the maint. (-: Although any pythoners among you willing to get dirty with perl are welcome to send patches. > At

Re: lintian and new python policy

2001-10-29 Thread Ben Burton
> "python" is a real package, no virtual one. I.e. at any given time, > there is only one package "python" on a system (neither python1.5 nor > python2.1 will provide "python"). Duh, okay. :) Thanks - Ben.

Re: lintian and new python policy

2001-10-29 Thread Gregor Hoffleit
* Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011029 15:46]: > > > > Also, someone else reported that lintian complains against > > > Depends: python (>= 2.1), python (<< 2.2) > > > > This is a lintian bug. It's not bothering to notice that one's a less-than > > and the other's a greater-than. > > Btw, isn't

Re: lintian and new python policy

2001-10-29 Thread Ben Burton
> > Also, someone else reported that lintian complains against > > Depends: python (>= 2.1), python (<< 2.2) > > This is a lintian bug. It's not bothering to notice that one's a less-than > and the other's a greater-than. Btw, isn't this Depends line problematic anyway? I could have python 1.5 a

Re: lintian and new python policy

2001-10-29 Thread Anthony Towns
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 12:40:33PM +0100, Tom Cato Amundsen wrote: > Has anyone started modifying lintian? If I remember correctly, > packages that generate lintian errors will be rejected... Lintian is advisory only. > Also, someone else reported that lintian complains against > Depends: python