Hi Russ,
On Thursday 3 January 2008 01:16, Russ Allbery wrote:
> http://lintian.debian.org/reports-testing/
This looks good in general, it's a clear improvement over what we have.
> * The HTML pages are now templatized (using Text::Template). The core of
> many of the pages is still gener
I have finished testing my new version of lintian's html_reports script
and have put up the pages it generates in a temporary location for people
to look at. Please take a look at:
http://lintian.debian.org/reports-testing/
and let me know what's broken.
Some notes:
* The HTML is intention
Hi,
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 16:32:48 -0500, James Vega wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 02:17:08PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > Parts of it are pretty ugly (and the Packages-fetching part isn't there),
> > but I'm attaching it anyway.
>
> Tying together grep-dctrl and dd-list would probably b
On Wednesday 02 January 2008 22:18, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Raphael Geissert schrieb:
> > Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >tracker-dbg
>
> Currently tracker-dbg holds the debugging symbols for the binary
> packages: tracker, tracker-search-tool, libtrackerclient0 and
> libtracker-gtk0.
> I
Raphael Geissert schrieb:
>
> Just to clarify to everybody, the list was screwed up by dd-list (my bad,
> didn't see the '-b' option part). Thanks to Adeodato for pointing that out.
> So, here's the list of binary packages (attachment is dd-list -u again).
>
> Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:18:46PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> So, what's the proper solution to that? Cluttering the archive with a
> load of -dbg packages or leave it as is?
The solution I took for the Vim packages was to have ORed Depends on all
of the binary packages that the -dbg package co
On 02/01/2008, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Now, adding a Depends on all those 4 binary packages in tracker-dbg
> seems wrong to me. I don't want to force people to install
> tracker-search-tool if they only want to debug tracker.
What about being a bit more subtle and play around with Recommends: (or
m
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 02:17:08PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Parts of it are pretty ugly (and the Packages-fetching part isn't there),
> but I'm attaching it anyway.
Tying together grep-dctrl and dd-list would probably be a cleaner
approach. I haven't done a thorough comparison to your lis
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 09:39:17PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> Raphael Geissert a écrit :
> > Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/01/2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >>> Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
> >>> Depends line.
> >> After a third thought, I still
On 02/01/2008, Colin Watson wrote:
> While the breakage would be obvious in the case of packages containing
> ELF binaries, […]
Not necessarily, one could remember of RC bugs opened for some months
due to arch: all packages containing shared objects, and its maintainer
wondering what was happening
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> I fail to see why. Imagine for example a -dev package providing only .h
> files, but depending on the architecture. It has to be Architecture: any
> and does not need to Depends on a package.
I know I'm hidding behind my 'the results may contain many false positives'
st
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:06:21PM -0500, Hubert Chathi wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:17:24 -0600, Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Hello all, I've written a script which tries to detect packages which
> > should be architecture all based on the fact that they don't contain a
> > De
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:04:44PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:24PM +, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>>> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>libgss-dbg (U)
>>>shishi-dbg (U)
>> rrght...
> Though after a
Raphael Geissert a écrit :
> Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
>> On 02/01/2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>> Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
>>> Depends line.
>> After a third thought, I still fail to see what that has to do with
>> being Architecture: all or any.
>>
>
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:17:24 -0600, Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello all, I've written a script which tries to detect packages which
> should be architecture all based on the fact that they don't contain a
> Depends field. This is usually bug either because of a missing
> Depend
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 02/01/2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
>> Depends line.
>
> After a third thought, I still fail to see what that has to do with
> being Architecture: all or any.
>
Quoting my self (first message):
>
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 09:04:44PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:24PM +, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >libgss-dbg (U)
> >shishi-dbg (U)
>
> rrght...
Those are buggy AFAICT not due to being arch:all, but due to a miss
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'll consider your message as sent (won't verify timestamps) before I
clarified the situation both by mail and on IRC.
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>
> Maybe there's rather a bug in your process. Instead of speaking of
> “plenty of greps”, you might want
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 09:11:40PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:04:44PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:24PM +, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >libgss-dbg (U)
> > >shishi-dbg (U)
> >
> > r
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:16:21PM +, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 02/01/2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
> > Depends line.
>
> After a third thought, I still fail to see what that has to do with
> being Architecture: all or a
On 02/01/2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have empty
> Depends line.
After a third thought, I still fail to see what that has to do with
being Architecture: all or any.
--
Cyril Brulebois
pgpTQTr7Qidre.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:24PM +, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>libgss-dbg (U)
>>shishi-dbg (U)
>
> rrght...
>
-dbg package without a Depends? that sounds like a bug (please read my first
message).
Depends: sishi
Depe
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:58:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
> Just to clarify to everybody, the list was screwed up by dd-list (my bad,
> didn't see the '-b' option part). Thanks to Adeodato for pointing that out.
> So, here's the list of binary packages (attachment is dd-list -u again).
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 08:04:44PM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:24PM +, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >libgss-dbg (U)
> >shishi-dbg (U)
>
> rrght...
Though after a second thought, -dbg should probably not have emp
Hello Joey,
Joey Hess wrote:
> Interesting idea, though so few packages lack dependencies that it won't
> catch much. Perhaps grepping for package that don't depend on any shared
> libraries would catch more?
>
Nice idea, though I'll first wait for everybody to read my last message
(Message-ID:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:58:24PM +, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>libgss-dbg (U)
>shishi-dbg (U)
rrght...
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOO
On 02/01/2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Forgot to mention that, based on the binary-amd64 Packages file of the
> main, contrib and non-free sections.
> I didn't check the content of the packages because that's something
> linda/lintian should do
Wondering why, I asked what they were supposed to
Interesting idea, though so few packages lack dependencies that it won't
catch much. Perhaps grepping for package that don't depend on any shared
libraries would catch more?
Raphael Geissert wrote:
> maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>klibc
>linux-2.6 (U)
heh
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just to clarify to everybody, the list was screwed up by dd-list (my bad,
didn't see the '-b' option part). Thanks to Adeodato for pointing that out.
So, here's the list of binary packages (attachment is dd-list -u again).
Anibal Avelar (Fixxxer) <[E
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:38:32PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hello Kurt,
>
> Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:17:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> I've written a script which tries to detect packages which should
> >> be
> >> architecture all base
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 07:17:24PM +, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> maximilian attems <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>klibc
>linux-2.6 (U)
OMG, I wish we knew about this before, we clearly would have saved a
_lot_ of buildd time.
Seriously, did you even _read_ the list you just submitted ? at least
> My first suggestion is to list binary packages instead of source.
> What about listing *binary* packages?
That would be the doing of dd-list alone, it seems.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato a
On 02/01/2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > Your list seems to contain alot of packages that do have a Depends
> > field.
>
> Like which one? I used a lot of grepping so maybe something was left
> in.
Take any random package, let's say icecc:
$ apt-cache show icecc|grep ^Depends:
Depends: libc6 (
Hello Cyril,
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Hm, what about checking their *content*? What about listing *binary*
> packages?
Forgot to mention that, based on the binary-amd64 Packages file of the main,
contrib and non-free sections.
I didn't check the content of the packages because that's something
li
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:17:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>db (U)
>zsh
My first suggestion is to list binary packages instead of source.
Then I could say that db4.6-doc is already arch:all
and that zsh-static is a false positive.
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Hello Kurt,
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:17:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I've written a script which tries to detect packages which should be
>> architecture all based on the fact that they don't contain a Depends
>> field.
>
> Your list seems to con
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:17:24PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've written a script which tries to detect packages which should be
> architecture all based on the fact that they don't contain a Depends field.
Your list seems to contain alot of packages that do have a Depends
On 02/01/2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> Hello all,
Maw.
> I've written a script which tries to detect packages which should be
> architecture all based on the fact that they don't contain a Depends
> field. This is usually bug either because of a missing Depends or
> because the package should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello all,
I've written a script which tries to detect packages which should be
architecture all based on the fact that they don't contain a Depends field.
This is usually bug either because of a missing Depends or because the
package should be Archit
Please see this site in Subject
40 matches
Mail list logo
