+++ /dev/null
-Check-Script: fields
-Author: Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <marc@marcbrockschmidt.de>
-Abbrev: fld
-Type: binary, udeb, source
-Unpack-Level: 1
-Needs-Info: debfiles
-Info: This script checks the syntax of the fields in package control files,
- as described in the Policy Manual.
-
-Tag: no-package-name
-Type: error
-Info: The package does not have a `Package:' field in its control file.
-Ref: policy 5.3
-
-Tag: bad-package-name
-Type: error
-Info: A package name should be at least two characters long, must consist
- of the alphanumerics and `+' `-' and `.', and must start with an
- alphanumeric character.
-Ref: policy 5.6.7
-
-Tag: package-not-lowercase
-Type: error
-Info: New packages should not use uppercase characters in their names.
-Ref: policy 5.6.7
-
-Tag: no-version-field
-Type: error
-Info: The package does not have a `Version:' field in its control file.
-Ref: policy 5.3
-
-Tag: bad-version-number
-Type: error
-Info: The version number fails one of the syntactic requirements of dpkg.
-Ref: policy 5.6.12
-
-Tag: upstream-version-not-numeric
-Type: error
-Info: The upstream version number should start with a digit.
-Ref: policy 5.6.12
-
-Tag: debian-revision-not-well-formed
-Type: warning
-Info: The debian version part (the part after the -) should consist of one
- or two dot-separated parts: one for a regular maintainer release or two
- for a source-NMU,
-
-Tag: debian-revision-should-not-be-zero
-Type: warning
-Info: The debian version part (the part after the -) should start with one,
- not with zero. This is to ensure that a correctly-done Maintainer Upload will
- always have a higher version number than a Non-Maintainer upload: a NMU could
- have been prepared which introduces this upstream version with
- Debian-revision -0.1
-Ref: devref 5.11.2
-
-Tag: no-architecture-field
-Type: error
-Info: The package does not have an `Architecture:' field in its control file.
-Ref: policy 5.3
-
-Tag: magic-arch-in-arch-list
-Type: error
-Info: The special architecture values `all' and `any' only make sense if
- they occur alone.
-Ref: policy 5.6.8
-
-Tag: unknown-architecture
-Type: warning
-Info: This package claims to be for an unknown architecture. The
- architecture should be one of the values supported by dpkg or one of the
- special values "all" or "any". The special value "source" is only used
- in *.changes files and does not make sense in a binary package or a *.dsc
- file.
-
-Tag: too-many-architectures
-Type: error
-Info: A binary package should list exactly one architecture (the one it is
- compiled for), or the special value `all' if it is architecture-independent.
-Ref: policy 5.6.8
-
-Tag: arch-any-in-binary-pkg
-Type: error
-Info: The special architecture value `any' does not make sense in a binary
- package.
-Ref: policy 5.6.8
-
-Tag: aspell-package-not-arch-all
-Type: warning
-Info: This package appears to be an aspell dictionary package, but it is
- not Architecture: all. The binary hashes should be built at install-time
- by calling aspell-autobuildhash, so the contents of the package should be
- architecture-independent.
-Ref: aspell-autobuildhash(8)
-
-Tag: no-maintainer-field
-Type: error
-Info: The package does not have a `Maintainer:' field in its control file.
-Ref: policy 5.3
-Tested: empty
-
-Tag: maintainer-name-missing
-Type: error
-Info: The maintainer field seems to contain just an email address. It must
- contain the package maintainer's name and email address.
-Ref: policy 5.6.2
-
-Tag: maintainer-address-missing
-Type: error
-Info: The maintainer field should contain the package maintainer's name and
- email address, with the name followed by the address inside angle
- brackets (< and >). The address seems to be missing.
-Ref: policy 5.6.2
-
-Tag: maintainer-address-malformed
-Type: error
-Info: The maintainer field could not be parsed according to the rules in
- the Policy Manual.
-Ref: policy 5.6.2
-
-Tag: maintainer-not-full-name
-Type: warning
-Info: The `name' part of this maintainer field is just one word, so it
- might not be a full name.
-
-Tag: maintainer-address-looks-weird
-Type: warning
-Info: The maintainer address does not have whitespace between the name
- and the email address.
-
-Tag: maintainer-address-is-on-localhost
-Type: error
-Info: The maintainer address includes localhost(.localdomain), which is
- an invalid e-mail address.
-Ref: policy 5.6.2
-
-Tag: uploader-name-missing
-Type: error
-Info: The uploader field seems to contain just an email address. It must
- contain the package uploader's name and email address.
-Ref: policy 5.6.2
-
-Tag: uploader-address-missing
-Type: error
-Info: The uploader field should contain the package uploader's name and
- email address, with the name followed by the address inside angle
- brackets (< and >). The address seems to be missing.
-Ref: policy 5.6.2
-
-Tag: uploader-address-malformed
-Type: error
-Info: The uploader field could not be parsed according to the rules in
- the Policy Manual.
-Ref: policy 5.6.2
-
-Tag: uploader-not-full-name
-Type: warning
-Info: The `name' part of this uploader field is just one word, so it
- might not be a full name.
-
-Tag: uploader-address-looks-weird
-Type: warning
-Info: The uploader address does not have whitespace between the name
- and the email address.
-
-Tag: uploader-address-is-on-localhost
-Type: error
-Info: The uploader address includes localhost(.localdomain), which is
- an invalid e-mail address.
-Ref: policy 5.6.2
-
-Tag: wrong-debian-qa-address-set-as-maintainer
-Type: error
-Info: Orphaned packages should no longer have the address
- <debian-qa@lists.debian.org> in the Maintainer field.
- .
- The correct Maintainer field for orphaned packages is
- Debian QA Group <packages@qa.debian.org>.
-Ref: devref 5.9.4
-
-Tag: wrong-debian-qa-group-name
-Type: error
-Info: Orphaned packages should have "Debian QA Group
- <packages@qa.debian.org>" in the maintainer field.
-Ref: devref 5.9.4
-
-Tag: no-human-maintainers
-Type: warning
-Info: The Maintainer address for this package is a mailing list and there
- are no Uploaders listed. Team-maintained packages should list the human
- maintainers in the Uploaders field.
-Ref: devref 5.12
-
-Tag: no-source-field
-Type: error
-Info: The package does not have a `Source:' field in its control file.
-Ref: policy 5.2
-
-Tag: source-field-does-not-match-pkg-name
-Type: error
-Info: The source package's filename is not the same as the name given
- in its Source field. The Source field should name the package.
-Ref: policy 5.6.1
-
-Tag: source-field-malformed
-Type: error
-Info: In a binary package, the Source field should identify the source
- package from which the package was compiled. It should be the
- source package name, optionally followed by a version number
- between parentheses.
-Ref: policy 5.6.1
-
-Tag: essential-in-source-package
-Type: error
-Info: This field should only appear in binary packages.
-Ref: policy 5.6.9
-
-Tag: essential-no-not-needed
-Type: error
-Info: Having `Essential: no' is the same as not having the field at all,
- so it just makes the Packages file longer with no benefit.
-Ref: policy 5.6.9
-
-Tag: unknown-essential-value
-Type: error
-Info: The only valid values for the Essential field are yes and no.
-Ref: policy 5.6.9
-
-Tag: no-section-field
-Type: warning
-Info: The package does not have a `Section:' field in its control file.
- .
- The field is mandatory for source packages and optional for binary
- packages, which use the source package's value as default is nothing
- else is specified.
-Ref: policy 5.3
-
-Tag: unknown-section
-Type: warning
-Info: The `Section:' field in this package's control file is not one of
- the sections in use on the ftp archive. Valid sections are currently
- admin, comm, devel, doc, editors, electronics, embedded, games,
- gnome, graphics, hamradio, interpreters, kde, libdevel, libs, mail,
- math, misc, net, news, oldlibs, otherosfs, perl, python, science, shells,
- sound, tex, text, utils, web, and x11.
- .
- The section name should be preceded by `non-free/' if the package
- is in the non-free distribution, and by `contrib/' if the package
- is in the contrib distribution.
-Ref: policy 2.4
-
-Tag: section-is-dh_make-template
-Type: error
-Info: The `Section:' field in this package's control file is set to
- unknown. This is not a valid section, and usually means a dh_make
- template control file was used and never modified to set the correct
- section.
-Ref: policy 2.4
-
-Tag: wrong-section-for-udeb
-Type: warning
-Info: udeb packages should have `Section: debian-installer'.
-
-Tag: no-priority-field
-Type: warning
-Info: The package does not have a `Priority:' field in its control file.
- .
- The Priority field can be included in a binary package by passing
- the -ip or -isp flags to dpkg-gencontrol when building the package.
- The field is optional in binary packages.
-Ref: policy 5.3
-
-Tag: unknown-priority
-Type: error
-Info: The `Priority:' field in this package's control file is not one of
- the priorities defined in the Policy Manual.
-Ref: policy 2.5
-
-Tag: superfluous-clutter-in-homepage
-Type: warning
-Info: The `Homepage:' field in this package's control file contains
- superfluous markup around the URL, like enclosing < and >.
- This is unnecessary and needlessly complicates using this information.
-
-Tag: bad-homepage
-Type: warning
-Info: The `Homepage:' field in this package's control file does not
- contain a valid absolute URL. Most probably you forgot to specificy
- the scheme (e.g. http).
-
-Tag: obsolete-field
-Type: error
-Info: This field is listed in the Policy Manual as obsolete and
- not-to-be-present in any package.
-Ref: policy D.2.6
-
-Tag: unknown-field-in-dsc
-Type: info
-Info: See the Policy Manual for a list of the possible fields in
- a source package control file.
-Ref: policy 5.4
-
-Tag: unknown-field-in-control
-Type: info
-Info: See the Policy Manual for a list of the possible fields in
- a binary package control file.
- .
- In udeb packages the fields pre-depends, conflicts, essential and
- suggests are disallowed, but they can contain the new fields
- subarchitecture and installer-menu-item.
-Ref: policy 5.3
-
-Tag: multiline-field
-Type: error
-Info: Most control fields must have only a single line of data.
-Ref: policy 5.1
-
-Tag: alternates-not-allowed
-Type: error
-Info: Only the `Depends', `Recommends', `Suggests' and `Pre-Depends'
- fields may specify alternate dependencies using the `|' symbol.
-Ref: policy 7.1
-
-Tag: versioned-provides
-Type: error
-Ref: policy 7.1
-Info: The `Provides' field may not specify a version range.
-
-Tag: obsolete-relation-form
-Ref: policy 7.1
-Type: warning
-Info: The forms `<' and `>' mean `<=' and `>=', not `<<'
- and `>>' as one might expect. For that reason these forms are
- obsolete, and should not be used in new packages. Use the longer forms
- instead.
-
-Tag: bad-version-in-relation
-Ref: policy 5.6.12
-Type: error
-Info: The version number used in this relationship does not match the
- defined format of a version number.
-
-Tag: package-relation-with-self
-Type: warning
-Info: The package declares a relationship with itself. This is not very
- useful, except in the case of a package Conflicting with itself, if its
- package name doubles as a virtual package.
-
-Tag: bad-relation
-Type: error
-Info: The package declares a relationship that could not be parsed according
- to the rules given in the Policy Manual.
-Ref: policy 7.1
-
-Tag: new-essential-package
-Type: warning
-Info: This package has the Essential flag set. New Essential packages
- are sufficiently rare that it seems worth warning about. They should
- be discussed on debian-devel first.
-Ref: policy 3.8
-
-Tag: non-us-spelling
-Type: info
-Info: Although non-us works for a section name, non-US is preferred.
-
-Tag: doc-package-depends-on-main-package
-Type: warning
-Info: The name of this package suggests that it is a documentation package.
- It is usually not desirable for documentation packages to depend on the
- packages they document, because users may want to install the docs before
- they decide whether they want to install the package. Also, documentation
- packages are often architecture-independent, so on other architectures
- the package on which it depends may not even exist.
-
-Tag: depends-on-obsolete-package
-Type: error
-Info: The package depends on a package that has been superseded.
- If the superseded package is part of an ORed group, it should not be
- the first package in the group.
-
-Tag: ored-depends-on-obsolete-package
-Type: info
-Info: The package depends on an ORed group of packages which includes
- a package that has been superseded.
-
-Tag: build-depends-on-obsolete-package
-Type: error
-Info: The package build-depends on a package that has been superseded.
-
-Tag: depends-on-old-emacs
-Type: warning
-Info: The package lists an old version of Emacs as its first dependency.
- It should probably be updated to support the current version of Emacs
- in the archive and then list that version first in the list of Emacs
- flavors it supports.
- .
- If the package intentionally only supports older versions of Emacs (if,
- for example, it was included with later versions of Emacs), add a lintian
- override.
-
-Tag: depends-on-x-metapackage
-Type: error
-Info: Packages that are not themselves metapackages must not depend on X
- Window System metapackages.
- .
- The metapackages xorg, xorg-dev, x-window-system, x-window-system-dev, and
- x-window-system-core exist only for the benefit of users and dependencies
- for other metapackages and should not be used in regular package
- dependencies.
-
-Tag: build-depends-on-x-metapackage
-Type: error
-Info: Packages must not build-depend on X Window System metapackages.
- .
- The metapackages xorg, xorg-dev, x-window-system, x-window-system-dev, and
- x-window-system-core exist only for the benefit of users and should not
- be used in package build dependencies.
-
-Tag: depends-on-essential-package-without-using-version
-Type: error
-Ref: policy 3.5
-Info: The package declares a depends on an essential package, e.g. dpkg,
- without using a versioned depends. Packages do not need to depend on
- essential packages; essential means that they will always be present.
- The only reason to list an explicit dependency on an essential package
- is if you need a particular version of that package, in which case the
- version should be given in the dependency.
-
-Tag: build-depends-on-essential-package-without-using-version
-Type: error
-Ref: policy 4.2
-Info: The package declares a build-depends on an essential package, e.g. dpkg,
- without using a versioned depends. Packages do not need to build-depend on
- essential packages; essential means that they will always be present.
- The only reason to list an explicit dependency on an essential package
- is if you need a particular version of that package, in which case the
- version should be given in the dependency.
-
-Tag: virtual-package-depends-without-real-package-depends
-Type: warning
-Info: The package declares a depends on a virtual package without listing a
- real package as an alternative first.
- .
- If this package could ever be a build dependency, it should list a real
- package as the first alternative to any virtual package in its Depends.
- Otherwise, the build daemons will not be able to provide a consistent
- build environment.
- .
- If it will never be a build dependency, this isn't necessary, but you may
- want to consider doing so anyway if there is a real package providing
- that virtual package that most users will want to use.
-
-Tag: invalid-arch-string-in-source-relation
-Type: error
-Ref: policy 5.6.8
-Info: The architecture string in the source relation does not follow policy.
- A common cause of this is a comma in the arch, i.e. [i386, m68k], it should
- be [i386 m68k].
-
-Tag: depends-on-build-essential-package-without-using-version
-Type: error
-Ref: policy 4.2
-Info: The package declares a depends on a build essential package without
- using a versioned depends. Packages do not have to build-depend on any
- package included in build-essential. It is the responsibility of anyone
- building packages to have all build-essential packages installed. The
- only reason for an explicit dependency on a package included in
- build-essential is if a particular version of that package is required,
- in which case the dependency should include the version.
-
-Tag: package-depends-on-an-x-font-package
-Type: error
-Info: Packages must not depend on X Window System font packages.
- .
- If one or more of the fonts so packaged are necessary for proper operation
- of the package with which they are associated the font package may be
- Recommended; if the fonts merely provide an enhancement, a Suggests
- relationship may be used.
-Ref: policy 11.8.5
-
-Tag: build-depends-indep-without-arch-indep
-Type: error
-Ref: policy 7.7
-Info: The control file specifies source relations for architecture-independent
- packages, but no architecture-independent packages are built.
-
-Tag: build-depends-without-arch-dep
-Type: info
-Ref: policy 7.7
-Info: The control file lists the given package in Build-Depends, but no
- architecture-dependent packages are built. If all the packages built are
- architecture-independent, the only packages that should be listed in
- Build-Depends are those required to run the clean target (such as
- debhelper if you use dh_clean). Other build dependencies should be listed
- in Build-Depends-Indep instead.
-
-Tag: clean-should-be-satisfied-by-build-depends
-Type: error
-Ref: policy 7.7
-Info: The specified package is required to run the clean target of
- <tt>debian/rules</tt> and therefore must be listed in Build-Depends, not
- Build-Depends-Indep, even if no architecture-dependent packages are
- built.
-
-Tag: missing-build-dependency
-Type: error
-Ref: policy 4.2
-Info: The package doesn't specify a build dependency on a package that is
- used in <tt>debian/rules</tt>.
- .
- lintian intentionally does not take into account transitive dependencies.
- Even if the package build-depends on some package that in turn
- build-depends on the needed package, an explicit build dependency should
- be added. Otherwise, a latent bug is created that will appear without
- warning if the other package is ever updated to change its dependencies.
- Even if this seems unlikely, please always add explicit build
- dependencies on every non-essential, non-build-essential package that is
- used directly during the build.
-
-Tag: missing-python-build-dependency
-Type: error
-Ref: policy 4.2
-Info: The package appears to use Python as part of its build process in
- <tt>debian/rules</tt> but doesn't depend on Python.
- .
- Normally, packages that use Python as part of the build process should
- build-depend on one of python, python-all, python-dev, or python-all-dev
- depending on whether they support multiple versions of Python and whether
- they're building modules or only using Python as part of the package
- build process. Packages that depend on a specific version of Python may
- build-depend on the appropriate pythonX.Y or pythonX.Y-dev package
- instead.
-
-Tag: missing-dh_python-build-dependency
-Type: error
-Ref: dh_python(1)
-Info: The package runs dh_python in <tt>debian/rules</tt> but doesn't
- build-depend on python or python-dev. dh_python requires
- <tt>/usr/bin/python</tt> to run, so packages using dh_python must
- build-depend on python (or python-dev or python-all-dev, which in turn
- depend on python), even if they don't otherwise need Python to build.
-
-Tag: build-conflicts-with-build-dependency
-Type: error
-Ref: policy 7.7
-Info: The package build-conflicts with a package that it also
- build-depends on.
-
-Tag: package-has-a-duplicate-build-relation
-Type: warning
-Info: The package declares the given build relations on the same package
- in either Build-Depends or Build-Depends-Indep, but the build relations
- imply each other and are therefore redundant.
-
-Tag: build-depends-on-1-revision
-Type: warning
-Info: The package declares a build dependency on a version of a package
- with a -1 Debian revision such as "libfoo (>= 1.2-1)". Such a
- dependency will not be satisfied by a backport of libfoo 1.2-1 and
- therefore makes backporting unnecessarily difficult. Normally, the -1
- version is unneeded and a dependency such as "libfoo (>= 1.2)" would
- be sufficient. If there was an earlier -0.X version of libfoo that would
- not satisfy the dependency, use "libfoo (>= 1.2-1~)" instead.
-
-Tag: needlessly-depends-on-awk
-Type: error
-Info: The package seems to declare a relation on awk. awk is a virtual
- package, but it is special since it's de facto essential. If you don't
- need to depend on a specific version of awk (which wouldn't work anyway,
- as dpkg doesn't support versioned provides), you should remove the
- dependency on awk.
-
-Tag: package-depends-on-multiple-libstdc-versions
-Type: error
-Info: The package seems to declare several relations to a libstdc version.
- This is not only sloppy but in the case of libraries, it may well break
- the runtime execution of programs.
-
-Tag: package-depends-on-multiple-tcl-versions
-Type: error
-Info: The package seems to declare several relations to a tcl version.
- This is not only sloppy but in the case of libraries, it may well break
- the runtime execution of programs.
-
-Tag: package-depends-on-multiple-tclx-versions
-Type: error
-Info: The package seems to declare several relations to a tclx version.
- This is not only sloppy but in the case of libraries, it may well break
- the runtime execution of programs.
-
-Tag: package-depends-on-multiple-tk-versions
-Type: error
-Info: The package seems to declare several relations to a tk version.
- This is not only sloppy but in the case of libraries, it may well break
- the runtime execution of programs.
-
-Tag: package-depends-on-multiple-tkx-versions
-Type: error
-Info: The package seems to declare several relations to a tkx version.
- This is not only sloppy but in the case of libraries, it may well break
- the runtime execution of programs.
-
-Tag: package-depends-on-multiple-libpng-versions
-Type: error
-Info: The package seems to declare several relations to a libpng version.
- This is not only sloppy but in the case of libraries, it may well break
- the runtime execution of programs.
-
-Tag: depends-on-libdb1-compat
-Type: error
-Info: The package seems to declare a relation on libdb1-compat.
- This library exists for compatibility with applications built against
- glibc 2.0 or 2.1. There is intentionally no corresponding development
- package. Do not link new applications against this library!
-
-Tag: depends-on-python-minimal
-Type: error
-Info: The python-minimal package (and versioned variants thereof) exists
- only to possibly become an Essential package. Depending on it is always
- an error since it should never be installed without python. If it
- becomes Essential, there is no need to depend on it, and until then,
- packages that require Python must depend on python.
-
-Tag: dbg-package-missing-depends
-Type: warning
-Info: This package has a name of the form of "X-dbg", indicating it
- contains detached debugging symbols for the package X. If so, it should
- depend on the corresponding package, generally with (= ${binary:Version})
- since the debugging symbols are only useful with the binaries created by
- the same build.
-
-Tag: conflicts-with-dependency
-Type: error
-Ref: policy 7.4
-Info: The package seems to conflict with one of its dependencies,
- recommendations, or suggestions by listing it in Conflicts or Breaks.
-
-Tag: package-uses-breaks
-Type: warning
-Ref: policy 7.3
-Info: This package uses the Breaks control field. This control field
- should not be used until the stable release of Debian supports Breaks.
-
-Tag: breaks-without-version
-Type: warning
-Ref: policy 7.3
-Info: This package declares a Breaks relationship with another package
- that has no version number. Normally, Breaks should be used to indicate
- an incompatibility with a specific version of another package, or with
- all versions predating a fix. If the two packages can never be installed
- at the same time, Conflicts should normally be used instead.
-
-Tag: bad-menu-item
-Type: error
-Info: The field Installer-Menu-Item should only contain positive integer
- values.
-
-Tag: redundant-origin-field
-Type: warning
-Info: You use the Origin field though the field value is the default (Debian).
- In this case the field is redundant and should be removed.
-
-Tag: binary-nmu-uses-old-version-style
-Type: warning
-Ref: devref 5.10.2.1
-Info: The version number of a binary NMU should be formed by appending
- <tt>+b</tt> and a digit to the source version. This version scheme is
- special-cased by the archive software. The -x.x.x version number style
- should no longer be used.
-
-Tag: binary-nmu-debian-revision-in-source
-Type: warning
-Ref: devref 5.10.2.1
-Info: The version number of your source package ends in +b and a number or
- has a Debian revision containing three parts. These version numbers are
- used by binary NMUs and should not be used as the source version. (The
- +b form is the current standard; the three-part version number now
- obsolete.)
-
-Tag: redundant-bugs-field
-Type: warning
-Info: You use the Bugs field though the field value is the default
- (debbugs://bugs.debian.org/). In this case the field is redundant and
- should be removed.
-
-Tag: build-depends-on-build-essential
-Type: error
-Ref: policy 7.7
-Info: You depend on the build-essential package, which is only a
- meta-package depending on build tools that have to be installed in all
- build environments.
-
-Tag: malformed-python-version
-Type: error
-Ref: Python policy 2.3
-Info: The Python-Version control field is not in one of the valid
- formats. It should be in one of the following formats:
- .
- all
- current
- current, >= X.Y
- >= X.Y
- >= A.B, << X.Y
- A.B, X.Y
- .
- (One or more specific versions may be listed with the last form.) A.B
- and X.Y should be Python versions.
-
-Tag: old-versioned-python-dependency
-Type: warning
-Info: This package appears to be an architecture-indepedent Python module
- but has a dependency on a version of python less than a particular
- version and no Python-Version control field. This normally means that
- the package isn't using the current Python policy; most
- architecture-independent Python packages will work with any future
- version of Python if they follow the new policy.
- .
- If this package really does require only a particular range of Python
- versions, add a Python-Version control field (as described in 2.3 of the
- Python policy) to resolve this warning.
-
-Tag: malformed-dm-upload-allowed
-Type: error
-Ref: http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003
-Info: The Dm-Upload-Allowed field in this package is set to something
- other than "yes". The only standardized value for this field in the
- Debian GR is "yes" and other values (including capitalization varients)
- may not work as expected.
-
-Tag: doc-package-should-be-section-doc
-Type: warning
-Info: This package has a name suggesting that it contains only
- documentation. If so, it should be in section "doc".
-
-Tag: python-package-should-be-section-python
-Type: warning
-Info: This package has a name suggesting that it is a Python extension or
- part of the Python environment. If so, it should be in section
- "python".
-
-Tag: perl-package-should-be-section-perl
-Type: warning
-Info: This package has a name suggesting that it is a Perl module package.
- If so, it should be in section "perl".
-
-Tag: dev-package-should-be-section-libdevel
-Type: warning
-Info: This package has a name suggesting that it is a library development
- package. If so, it should be in section "libdevel".
-
-Tag: debug-package-should-be-priority-extra
-Type: warning
-Info: This package has a name suggesting that it contains detached
- debugging symbols. If so, it should have priority "extra" since users
- normally do not need such packages.
projects / maemian / blobdiff