On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 01:17 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> it would need to get the list of binary packages for a source and
> lint all of them with the same lintian call.
The usual way of running lintian after a build checks all binary
packages and the source at the same time. I think UDD should
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: qa.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: udd
Hi!
As mentioned in #1028503, the DMD shows a nice panel with patch
status, and which ones need work, but that seems to be failing to take
into account several of the other fields that signify that the p
Hi!
On Sun, 2023-01-15 at 21:12:53 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I'm wondering why diverge from the patch metadata guidelines? If there's
> > a desire to change the field semantics, perhaps it would be better to
> > change the guidelines instead? :)
> >ยท
> > But given this interchange, perhaps
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> unarchive 1028503
Bug #1028503 {Done: Lucas Nussbaum } [qa.debian.org] UDD:
Unknown "yes" value for Forwarded field in patch metadata
Unarchived Bug 1028503
>
End of message, stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
Package: qa.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: qa.debian@packages.debian.org
Usertags: udd
Hi!
There are some lintian tags (I know at least of
lacks-unversioned-link-to-shared-library), which require multiple
packages to be linted together for them to be emitted. In this case
libfooN and libfo
5 matches
Mail list logo
