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

lintian: r1064 - in trunk: checks debian



Author: rra
Date: 2007-12-08 01:44:19 +0100 (Sat, 08 Dec 2007)
New Revision: 1064

Modified:
   trunk/checks/debconf
   trunk/debian/changelog
Log:
* checks/debconf:
  + [RA] Go back to not warning about "no" in boolean debconf
    questions.  The word is too common in normal English prose for
    reasons other than assuming a particular debconf interface.  Thanks,
    Rafael Laboissiere.  (Closes: #453177)

Modified: trunk/checks/debconf
===================================================================
--- trunk/checks/debconf	2007-12-08 00:39:03 UTC (rev 1063)
+++ trunk/checks/debconf	2007-12-08 00:44:19 UTC (rev 1064)
@@ -314,7 +314,7 @@
             if ($template->{description} =~ /(\A|\s)(I|[Mm]y|[Ww]e|[Oo]ur|[Oo]urs|mine|myself|ourself|me|us)(\Z|\s)/) {
                 tag "using-first-person-in-templates", $template->{template};
             }
-            if ($template->{description} =~ /[ \'\"](yes|no(?! longer))[ \'\",;.]/i and $type eq 'boolean') {
+            if ($template->{description} =~ /[ \'\"]yes[ \'\",;.]/i and $type eq 'boolean') {
                 tag "making-assumptions-about-interfaces-in-templates", $template->{template};
             }
         }

Modified: trunk/debian/changelog
===================================================================
--- trunk/debian/changelog	2007-12-08 00:39:03 UTC (rev 1063)
+++ trunk/debian/changelog	2007-12-08 00:44:19 UTC (rev 1064)
@@ -2,6 +2,11 @@
 
   * checks/*.desc:
     + [RA] Remove the unused Standards-Version header.
+  * checks/debconf:
+    + [RA] Go back to not warning about "no" in boolean debconf
+      questions.  The word is too common in normal English prose for
+      reasons other than assuming a particular debconf interface.  Thanks,
+      Rafael Laboissiere.  (Closes: #453177)
   * checks/fields:
     + [RA] Python documentation packages should still be in section doc.
       Thanks, Michal Čihař.  (Closes: #454688)



Reply to: