[SCM] Debian package checker branch, master, updated. 2.3.3-26-g79a1d21
The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
commit 79a1d215357fc43c7098ffe6f8a0c10b8d2a3596
Author: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
Date: Sat Mar 20 17:12:26 2010 -0700
Allow umountn?fs instead of $*_fs in LSB init headers
* checks/init.d:
+ [RA] Allow umountnfs to satisfy a $remote_fs requirement and
umountnfs or umountfs to satisfy a $local_fs requirement in LSB
headers, avoiding false positives in unusual situations such as
rsyslog. Thanks, Michael Biebl. (Closes: #571280)
diff --git a/checks/init.d b/checks/init.d
index 8c2bd2a..60323f6 100644
--- a/checks/init.d
+++ b/checks/init.d
@@ -367,10 +367,10 @@ sub check_init {
tag "init.d-script-missing-dependency-on-remote_fs", "/etc/init.d/$_: $keyword"
if ($needs_fs{'remote'} && (!defined $lsb{$keyword}
- || $lsb{$keyword} !~ m,(?:^|\s)\$remote_fs(?:\s|$),));
+ || $lsb{$keyword} !~ m,(?:^|\s)(?:\$remote_fs|umountnfs)(?:\s|$),));
tag "init.d-script-missing-dependency-on-local_fs", "/etc/init.d/$_: $keyword"
if ($needs_fs{'local'} && (!defined $lsb{$keyword}
- || $lsb{$keyword} !~ m,(?:^|\s)\$(local|remote)_fs(?:\s|$),));
+ || $lsb{$keyword} !~ m,(?:^|\s)(?:\$(local|remote)_fs|umountn?fs)(?:\s|$),));
}
next unless defined $lsb{$keyword};
for my $dependency (split(/\s+/, $lsb{$keyword})) {
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index f266c7b..c608ec1 100755
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ lintian (2.3.4) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
* checks/init.d:
+ [RA] Exclude symlinks to upstart-job from init script syntax checks.
Based on a patch by Jos Boumans. (Closes: #569492)
+ + [RA] Allow umountnfs to satisfy a $remote_fs requirement and
+ umountnfs or umountfs to satisfy a $local_fs requirement in LSB
+ headers, avoiding false positives in unusual situations such as
+ rsyslog. Thanks, Michael Biebl. (Closes: #571280)
* checks/rules:
+ [RA] Allow ant1.7 to satisfy a build requirement for ant. Thanks,
Rene Engelhard. (Closes: #572430)
--
Debian package checker
Reply to: