[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#349761: marked as done (lintian: wrong-bug-number-in-closes complains without good reason)

Your message dated Sat, 04 Mar 2006 23:36:34 -0800
with message-id <87irqt1gxp.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
and subject line Bug#349761: lintian: wrong-bug-number-in-closes complains without good reason
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: lintian
Version: 1.23.15
Severity: normal

I have the following changelog entry:

evms (2.5.4-5) unstable; urgency=low

  * Remove evms-udeb and all traces of it in the build system.
    (Closes: #223995, #239892)

 -- Steinar H. Gunderson <sesse@debian.org>  Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:58:29 +0100

dpkg-parsechangelog parses this correctly, but lintian complains:

W: libevms-2.5: wrong-bug-number-in-closes #xxxxxx
N:
N:   Bug numbers can only contain digits.
N:   
N:   Refer to Policy Manual, section 4.4 for details.
N:

Policy 4.4, however, mentions a regex, and my closes line definitely
matches that regex. What's going on? Why isn't lintian using the regex
from Policy?

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.14.3
Locale: LANG=en_DK.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_DK.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

Versions of packages lintian depends on:
ii  binutils             2.16.1cvs20060117-1 The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii  diffstat             1.41-1              produces graph of changes introduc
ii  dpkg-dev             1.13.11.1           package building tools for Debian
ii  file                 4.15-2              Determines file type using "magic"
ii  gettext              0.14.5-2            GNU Internationalization utilities
ii  intltool-debian      0.34.1+20050828     Help i18n of RFC822 compliant conf
ii  libparse-debianchang 1.0-1               parse Debian changelogs and output
ii  man-db               2.4.3-3             The on-line manual pager
ii  perl [libdigest-md5- 5.8.7-10            Larry Wall's Practical Extraction 

lintian recommends no packages.

-- debconf-show failed

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Steinar H Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com> writes:

> Package: lintian
> Version: 1.23.15
> Severity: normal

> I have the following changelog entry:

> evms (2.5.4-5) unstable; urgency=low

>   * Remove evms-udeb and all traces of it in the build system.
>     (Closes: #223995, #239892)

>  -- Steinar H. Gunderson <sesse@debian.org>  Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:58:29 +0100

> dpkg-parsechangelog parses this correctly, but lintian complains:

> W: libevms-2.5: wrong-bug-number-in-closes #xxxxxx
> N:
> N:   Bug numbers can only contain digits.
> N:   
> N:   Refer to Policy Manual, section 4.4 for details.
> N:

> Policy 4.4, however, mentions a regex, and my closes line definitely
> matches that regex. What's going on? Why isn't lintian using the regex
> from Policy?

Hi Steinar,

It isn't actually complaining about that entry.  The text it prints after
the warning is the exact text that it found in the changelog.  It's
complaining about the following entry from evms 2.2.1-2 on line 411:

  * Support 2.6 kernel modules (.ko) in mkinitrd script
    (Closes: #xxxxxx)

Since your bug report, Frank committed a patch to Subversion that will
cause the next version of lintian to print out the line number where it
found the problem.

I'm closing this bug because I believe lintian's behavior is correct.
It's perhaps not ideal that it complains about ancient history in the
changelog file, but all of the other changelog syntax checks also check
the entire file.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--- End Message ---
Reply to: