On Sun, 2022-10-23 at 17:15 +0200, Gerardo Ballabio wrote:
> E: galois source: source-is-missing [doc/galois-it.html]
> E: galois source: source-is-missing [doc/galois.html]
>
> That simply isn't true. The source files are there and are
> doc/galois-it.xml and doc/galois.xml. The html files are generated
> simply by running "make html" in the doc directory.
> How can I let Lintian know?
Ideally these files would be removed from the upstream VCS and tarballs
and always created at build time instead. Please send a patch upstream.
lintian has an override mechanism, you could use that as a workaround.
> Note: in order for "make html" to work a few additional packages need
> to be installed, namely: xmlto, dblatex, texlive-lang-italian. I
> didn't set them as build-depends because they aren't needed for
> building the package ("make html" isn't run during the build).
> Perhaps I should?
The Debian ftp-master policy is that all generated files must be
buildable using Debian main, but not that they actually be built during
package builds, however the best way to prove they are still buildable
on Debian is to actually build them and do it as often as possible.
Personally I would suggest adding the HTML build deps and command(s).
> W: galois source: inconsistent-appstream-metadata-license
> misc/galois.appdata.xml (gfdl-1.3+ != gfdl-niv-1.3+)
> [debian/copyright]
>
> As far as I understand GFDL-NIV-1.3+ is the correct string to put in
> debian/copyright (please correct me if I'm wrong). I tried to put that
> in misc/galois.appdata.xml too, but it doesn't seem to be accepted as
> a valid option (appstreamcli bails out on it). As things currently
> stand, I guess I should just ignore it. Do you think I should file a
> bug on Lintian?
This sounds like a bug or missing feature in appstreamcli, please file
one upstream if there isn't one filed yet. Until the issue is fixed,
you could use a lintian override to document the problem.
> I: galois: extra-license-file [usr/share/gnome/help/galois/C/gpl.dbk]
>
> I believe I should just ignore this. The file is required for the
> Gnome documentation (doc/galois.xml, doc/galois-it.xml) to be
> self-contained. It's been there in every release.
Agreed. You could use a lintian override to document this and file a
lintian bug about the issue, since other packages are likely to also be
affected by this positive that should be ignored.
> I: galois: possible-documentation-but-no-doc-base-registration
>
> Since this is only info-level warning I might ignore it, or do you
> think it's important? If so, can you please suggest what I should do?
doc-base isn't widely used, so feel free to ignore it, but it should
also be fairly simple to fix it if you have time.
> Another issue: my GPG key was originally set to expire in 2021. I've
> extended it to 2024, but I haven't used it since. Can you please check
> that it's ok? The key fingerprint is AAC6 4CF6 8354 826A D78D BD4C
> 27E3 7504 8FDB 4BC9.
Your key looks good according to these commands:
$ gpg --export 'AAC6 4CF6 8354 826A D78D BD4C 27E3 7504 8FDB 4BC9' | hokey lint
$ gpg --export 'AAC6 4CF6 8354 826A D78D BD4C 27E3 7504 8FDB 4BC9' | sq-keyring-linter
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part