Adding upstream version 2.117.0.upstream/2.117.0upstream

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

40 files changed, 522 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/tags/r/r-data-without-readme-source.tag b/tags/r/r-data-without-readme-source.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..80d3754
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/r-data-without-readme-source.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+Tag: r-data-without-readme-source
+Severity: error
+Check: languages/r
+Explanation: Many modules packaged for the R Project for Statistical Computing contain
+ data files with names as *.rda, *.Rda, *.rdata, *.Rdata, etc.
+ .
+ When such files exist, the FTP masters expect them to be explained in
+ debian/README.source, which this package is missing.
+ .
+ Please add a README.source documenting the origins of these files.
+See-Also: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/09/msg00332.html
diff --git a/tags/r/r-package-not-arch-all.tag b/tags/r/r-package-not-arch-all.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..12659a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/r-package-not-arch-all.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+Tag: r-package-not-arch-all
+Severity: warning
+Check: languages/r/architecture
+Explanation: The package for an <code>R</code> language package ships a
+ <code>DESCRIPTION</code> file that states <code>NeedsCompilation: No</code>
+ but is not marked <code>Architecture: all</code>.
+ .
+ The package does not require compilation and should be
+ architecture-independent.
+See-Also: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-devel/R-exts.html
diff --git a/tags/r/raster-image-in-scalable-directory.tag b/tags/r/raster-image-in-scalable-directory.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..589d82c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/raster-image-in-scalable-directory.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+Tag: raster-image-in-scalable-directory
+Severity: warning
+Check: desktop/icons
+Explanation: The given raster image was installed into a "scalable" icon directory.
+ Only vector graphics (e.g. SVG) should be installed into those directories.
diff --git a/tags/r/rc-version-greater-than-expected-version.tag b/tags/r/rc-version-greater-than-expected-version.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5c47662
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/rc-version-greater-than-expected-version.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+Tag: rc-version-greater-than-expected-version
+Severity: warning
+Check: debian/changelog
+See-Also: debian-policy 5.6.12
+Explanation: The package appears to be a release candidate or preview release, but
+ the version sorts higher than the expected final release.
+ .
+ For non-native packages, the check examines the upstream version.
+ For native packages, it looks at the Debian maintainer's revision.
diff --git a/tags/r/read-in-maintainer-script.tag b/tags/r/read-in-maintainer-script.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1127ec4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/read-in-maintainer-script.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+Tag: read-in-maintainer-script
+Severity: error
+Check: scripts
+Explanation: The given maintainer script appears to use <code>read</code> to
+ get information from the user. Prompting in maintainer scripts must be done
+ by communicating through a utility that conforms to the Debian configuration
+ management specification, version 2 or higher. The <code>debconf</code>
+ program is a popular choice.
+ .
+ With this tag, there is a potential for false positives. For example,
+ <code>read</code> could be used in a block with redirection, in a function
+ in a pipe, or when standard input is provided in an unusual way.
+See-Also:
+ debian-policy 3.9.1
diff --git a/tags/r/readme-debian-contains-debmake-template.tag b/tags/r/readme-debian-contains-debmake-template.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2d2538a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/readme-debian-contains-debmake-template.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+Tag: readme-debian-contains-debmake-template
+Severity: warning
+Check: debian/readme
+Explanation: The README.Debian file installed by this package contains one of the
+ template phrases from the README.Debian provided by deb-make or dh&lowbar;make:
+ .
+  Comments regarding the package
+  So far nothing to say
+  &lt;possible notes regarding this package - if none, delete this file&gt;
+  Automatically generated by debmake
+ .
+ If there is real information in the file, please delete any generic
+ template phrases. If there is nothing to say in the file, it is best
+ removed.
diff --git a/tags/r/readme-debian-contains-invalid-email-address.tag b/tags/r/readme-debian-contains-invalid-email-address.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f00ec57
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/readme-debian-contains-invalid-email-address.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+Tag: readme-debian-contains-invalid-email-address
+Severity: warning
+Check: debian/readme
+Explanation: The README.Debian file contains an invalid email address: the domain
+ needs at least one dot. This looks like a mistake.
diff --git a/tags/r/readme-debian-mentions-usr-doc.tag b/tags/r/readme-debian-mentions-usr-doc.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f281c77
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/readme-debian-mentions-usr-doc.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+Tag: readme-debian-mentions-usr-doc
+Severity: warning
+Check: debian/readme
+Explanation: The README.Debian file installed by this package apparently points
+ users at /usr/doc. /usr/doc has been retired and all documentation
+ migrated to /usr/share/doc. This reference should probably also be
+ updated.
diff --git a/tags/r/readme-source-is-dh_make-template.tag b/tags/r/readme-source-is-dh_make-template.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..55e4303
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/readme-source-is-dh_make-template.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+Tag: readme-source-is-dh_make-template
+Severity: error
+Check: dh-make
+Explanation: The debian/README.source file appears to be an unmodified or insufficiently
+ modified copy of the dh&lowbar;make template.
+ .
+ Please double-check the README.source page and replace it with information
+ about this source package or simply remove the file completely.
diff --git a/tags/r/recommended-field.tag b/tags/r/recommended-field.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..df83679
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/recommended-field.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+Tag: recommended-field
+Severity: warning
+Check: fields/recommended
+Renamed-From:
+ no-priority-field
+ no-section-field-for-source
+ no-section-field
+ no-urgency-in-changes-file
+Explanation: The named field is recommended by policy but not present in the
+ package's primary control file.
+See-Also:
+ debian-policy 5.2,
+ debian-policy 5.3,
+ debian-policy 5.5
diff --git a/tags/r/recursive-privilege-change.tag b/tags/r/recursive-privilege-change.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f844611
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/recursive-privilege-change.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+Tag: recursive-privilege-change
+Severity: warning
+Check: scripts
+Renamed-From: maintainer-script-should-not-use-recursive-chown-or-chmod
+Explanation: The named maintainer script appears to call <code>chmod</code> or
+ <code>chown</code> with a <code>--recursive</code>/<code>-R</code> argument, or
+ it uses <code>find(1)</code> with similar intent.
+ .
+ All such uses are vulnerable to hardlink attacks on mainline (i.e.
+ non-Debian) kernels that do not set <code>fs.protected&lowbar;hardlinks=1</code>.
+ .
+ The security risk arises when a non-privileged user set links to
+ files they do not own, such as such as <code>/etc/shadow</code> or
+ files in <code>/var/lib/dpkg/</code>. A superuser's recursive call to
+ <code>chown</code> or <code>chmod</code> on behalf of a role user account
+ would then modify the non-owned files in ways that allow the
+ non-privileged user to manipulate them later.
+ .
+ There are several ways to mitigate the issue in maintainer scripts:
+ .
+  - For a static role user, please call <code>chown</code> at build time
+    and not during the installation.
+  - If that is too complicated, use <code>runuser(1)</code> in the
+    relevant build parts to create files with correct ownership.
+  - Given a static list of files to change, use non-recursive calls
+    for each file. (Please do not generate the list with <code>find</code>.)
+See-Also: Bug#895597, Bug#889060, Bug#889488, runuser(1)
diff --git a/tags/r/redundant-bugs-field.tag b/tags/r/redundant-bugs-field.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ffa8b21
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/redundant-bugs-field.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+Tag: redundant-bugs-field
+Severity: warning
+Check: fields/bugs
+Explanation: 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.
diff --git a/tags/r/redundant-build-prerequisites.tag b/tags/r/redundant-build-prerequisites.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ddb3aec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/redundant-build-prerequisites.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+Tag: redundant-build-prerequisites
+Severity: warning
+Check: fields/package-relations
+Renamed-From:
+ package-has-a-duplicate-build-relation
+Explanation: The source declares a variety of build prerequisites
+ in <code>Build-Depends</code>, <code>Build-Depends-Indep</code>,
+ or <code>Build-Depends-Arch</code> but the fields work together.
+ The given set contains redundant information.
+ .
+ Please simplify the build prerequisites.
diff --git a/tags/r/redundant-control-relation.tag b/tags/r/redundant-control-relation.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1893d52
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/redundant-control-relation.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+Tag: redundant-control-relation
+Severity: pedantic
+Check: debian/control/field/relation
+Renamed-From:
+ duplicate-in-relation-field
+Explanation: The named field in the <code>debian/control</code> file lists
+ multiple package relationships when one would be sufficient.
+ .
+ The less restrictive declaration can be removed. The tools <code>dpkg-source</code>
+ and <code>dpkg-gencontrol</code> do that automatically, so it does not affect the
+ package generated from this source.
diff --git a/tags/r/redundant-globbing-patterns.tag b/tags/r/redundant-globbing-patterns.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a8ce986
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/redundant-globbing-patterns.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+Tag: redundant-globbing-patterns
+Severity: pedantic
+Check: debian/copyright/dep5
+Explanation: Two globbing patterns in the same <code>Files</code> section in
+ debian/copyright match the same file.
+ .
+ This situation can occur when a narrow pattern should apply the same license
+ as a broader pattern. Please create another <code>Files</code> section for the
+ narrow pattern and place it below other patterns that compete for the same
+ files.
+See-Also: Bug#905747,
+ https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/
diff --git a/tags/r/redundant-installation-prerequisite.tag b/tags/r/redundant-installation-prerequisite.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c165196
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/redundant-installation-prerequisite.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+Tag: redundant-installation-prerequisite
+Severity: warning
+Check: debian/control/prerequisite/redundant
+Renamed-From:
+ stronger-dependency-implies-weaker
+Explanation: A stronger field for prerequisites in the <code>debian/control</code>
+ file satisfies the named condition stated in a weaker field.
+ .
+ For example, you would see this tag when the <code>Depends</code> field
+ already requires that a package which is also listed in <code>Recommends</code>
+ or <code>Suggests</code> is installed. Or, a package could be listed in both
+ <code>Recommends</code> as well as <code>Suggests</code>.
+ .
+ Current versions of <code>dpkg-gencontrol</code> will silently ignore the
+ weaker field, but like anything unexpected it could indicate another oversight,
+ such as a misspelling or having forgotten to remove the stronger prereguisite
+ when the intent was to move it to a weaker field.
+See-Also:
+ debian-policy 7.2
diff --git a/tags/r/redundant-origin-field.tag b/tags/r/redundant-origin-field.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..319031b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/redundant-origin-field.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+Tag: redundant-origin-field
+Severity: warning
+Check: fields/origin
+Explanation: You use the Origin field though the field value is the default (Debian).
+ In this case the field is redundant and should be removed.
diff --git a/tags/r/relative-conffile.tag b/tags/r/relative-conffile.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7cb353a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/relative-conffile.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+Tag: relative-conffile
+Severity: error
+Check: conffiles
+Explanation: All entries in the <code>debian/conffiles</code> control file should
+ have an absolute path specification.
+See-Also:
+ debian-policy appendix-5.1
diff --git a/tags/r/relative-library-search-path.tag b/tags/r/relative-library-search-path.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a2b6918
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/relative-library-search-path.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+Tag: relative-library-search-path
+Severity: error
+Check: binaries/rpath
+Explanation: The binary or shared library sets RPATH or RUNPATH. This
+ overrides the normal library search path, possibly interfering with
+ local policy and causing problems for multilib, among other issues.
+ .
+ As an aggravating factor, this search path is relative! It is probably
+ not what you wanted.
+ .
+ The only time a binary or shared library in a Debian package should
+ set RPATH or RUNPATH is if it is linked to private shared libraries
+ in the same package. In that case, place those private shared
+ libraries in <code>/usr/lib/&ast;package&ast;</code>. Libraries used by
+ binaries in other packages should be placed in <code>/lib</code> or
+ <code>/usr/lib</code> as appropriate, with a proper SONAME, in which case
+ RPATH/RUNPATH is unnecessary.
+ .
+ To fix this problem, look for link lines like:
+ .
+     <code>gcc test.o -o test -Wl,--rpath,/usr/local/lib</code>
+ or
+     <code>gcc test.o -o test -R/usr/local/lib</code>
+ .
+ and remove the <code>-Wl,--rpath</code> or <code>-R</code> argument.
+ .
+ You can also use the <code>chrpath</code> utility to remove the RPATH.
+See-Also:
+ https://wiki.debian.org/RpathIssue,
+ Bug#732682,
+ Bug#732674
diff --git a/tags/r/relative-symlink.tag b/tags/r/relative-symlink.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..be4f4dd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/relative-symlink.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+Tag: relative-symlink
+Severity: error
+Check: files/symbolic-links
+Renamed-From: symlink-should-be-absolute
+Explanation: Symbolic links between different top-level directories should be
+ absolute.
+ .
+ If you use debhelper, running dh&lowbar;link after creating the package structure
+ will fix this problem for you.
+See-Also: debian-policy 10.5
diff --git a/tags/r/remove-of-unknown-diversion.tag b/tags/r/remove-of-unknown-diversion.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5a43a46
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/remove-of-unknown-diversion.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+Tag: remove-of-unknown-diversion
+Severity: error
+Check: maintainer-scripts/diversion
+Explanation: The named maintainer script removes a diversion that it did not
+ add.
+ .
+ When cleaning up unnecessary diversions from old versions of the package,
+ please remove them in <code>preinst</code> or <code>postinst</code>. Do
+ not use <code>postrm</code> for that purpose.
diff --git a/tags/r/renamed-tag.tag b/tags/r/renamed-tag.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..356305a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/renamed-tag.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+Tag: renamed-tag
+Severity: pedantic
+Show-Always: yes
+Check: debian/lintian-overrides/mystery
+Explanation: The package has an override for a tag that was renamed.
+ Lintian tag are sometime renamed in order to improve their name.
+ .
+ Override file is dynamically translated by Lintian. Nevertheless
+ please replace the old name by the new name.
diff --git a/tags/r/repackaged-source-not-advertised.tag b/tags/r/repackaged-source-not-advertised.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5bd64be
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/repackaged-source-not-advertised.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+Tag: repackaged-source-not-advertised
+Severity: info
+Check: debian/copyright/dep5
+Explanation: The <code>debian/copyright</code> file mentions <code>Files-Excluded</code>
+ but the source version has no repack suffix.
+ .
+ Repackaged sources are expected to indicate in their version number
+ that they are different from the upstream release. It is commonly
+ done by adding a repack suffix to the upstream version.
+ .
+ The choice of repack suffix depends on the reason for repackaging.
+ When some files were excluded because licensing was a concern, the
+ suffix <code>+dfsg</code> may be appropriate. In more generic cases, one
+ could chose <code>+ds</code>.
+ .
+ Upstream sources are sometimes repackaged by accident when using old
+ versions of <code>dh&lowbar;make</code>. It can also happen when a maintainer
+ invokes the dh&lowbar;make option <code>--createorig</code> even though it is
+ not needed.
+ .
+ According to the Debian Developer's Reference 6.7.8.2, the repack
+ suffix is not required.
+ .
+ Please include such a suffix in the changelog version number to avoid
+ this warning.
+See-Also: Bug#471537, https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html
diff --git a/tags/r/repeated-path-segment.tag b/tags/r/repeated-path-segment.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8da58b3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/repeated-path-segment.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+Tag: repeated-path-segment
+Severity: pedantic
+Check: files/hierarchy/path-segments
+Explanation: The file is installed into a location that repeats the given
+ path segment. An example would be <code>/usr/lib/lib</code> or
+ <code>/usr/share/myprogram/share</code>.
+ .
+ More often than not this is unintended.
+See-Also: Bug#950052, Bug#950027
diff --git a/tags/r/repeated-trigger-name.tag b/tags/r/repeated-trigger-name.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8ebae1a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/repeated-trigger-name.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+Tag: repeated-trigger-name
+Severity: error
+Check: triggers
+Explanation: The package repeats the same trigger. There should be no reason to
+ do this and it may lead to confusing results or errors.
+ .
+ For the same "base" type of trigger (e.g. two <code>interest</code>-type triggers)
+ the last declaration will be the effective one.
+ .
+ This tag is also triggered if the package has an <code>activate</code> trigger
+ for something on which it also declares an <code>interest</code>. The only (but
+ rather unlikely) reason to do this is if another package *also*
+ declares an <code>interest</code> and this package needs to activate that
+ other package. If the package is using it for this exact purpose, then
+ please use a Lintian override to state this.
+ .
+ Please remove any duplicate definitions.
+See-Also: deb-triggers(5), Bug#698723
diff --git a/tags/r/required-field.tag b/tags/r/required-field.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d3bb384
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/required-field.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+Tag: required-field
+Severity: error
+Check: fields/required
+Renamed-From:
+ no-maintainer-field
+ no-architecture-field
+ no-description-in-changes-file
+ no-package-name
+ no-standards-version-field
+ no-version-field
+ package-has-no-description
+Explanation: The named field is required by policy but not present in the
+ package's primary control file.
+See-Also:
+ debian-policy 5.3,
+ debian-policy 5.5,
+ debian-policy 5.6.11
diff --git a/tags/r/requires-r-api.tag b/tags/r/requires-r-api.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e8e55e3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/requires-r-api.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Tag: requires-r-api
+Severity: error
+Check: languages/r/site-library
+Explanation: This package ships a site library for the <code>R</code>
+ programming language package but does not declare the
+ <code>R</code> API <code>r-api-*N*</code> as a package
+ prerequisite.
+ .
+ With the dh sequencer, please use <code>--buildsystem=R</code> in
+ <code>debian/rules</code> and add the substitution variable
+ <code>${R:Depends}</code> to the <code>Depends</code> field in
+ <code>debian/control</code>.
+See-Also: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/r-pkg-team
diff --git a/tags/r/root-in-contact.tag b/tags/r/root-in-contact.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cbc61e6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/root-in-contact.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+Tag: root-in-contact
+Severity: error
+Check: fields/mail-address
+Renamed-From:
+ maintainer-address-is-root-user
+ uploader-address-is-root-user
+ changed-by-address-is-root-user
+Explanation: The named contact includes root as a name or as part of
+ the mail address, which is invalid.
+ .
+ The package may not have been built in a sane environment.
diff --git a/tags/r/ruby-interpreter-is-deprecated.tag b/tags/r/ruby-interpreter-is-deprecated.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3fdb763
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/ruby-interpreter-is-deprecated.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+Tag: ruby-interpreter-is-deprecated
+Severity: warning
+Check: languages/ruby
+Explanation: Starting with ruby2.3, Ruby interpreter packages stopped
+ providing the  <code>ruby-interpreter</code> virtual package. It should
+ no longer be used as a prerequisite.
+ .
+ In packages using <code>gem2deb</code>, please consider using
+ <code>${ruby:Depends}</code>. It will expand automatically to the
+ prerequisites the package needs (including the interpreter as well
+ as the libraries) and can replace all other Ruby-related dependency
+ declarations.
diff --git a/tags/r/ruby-script-but-no-ruby-dep.tag b/tags/r/ruby-script-but-no-ruby-dep.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2e12ce3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/ruby-script-but-no-ruby-dep.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+Tag: ruby-script-but-no-ruby-dep
+Severity: error
+Check: scripts
+Explanation: Packages with Ruby scripts must depend on a valid Ruby interpreter.
+ If any script uses <code>#!/usr/bin/ruby</code>, the package
+ should declare <code>ruby</code> as a prerequisite.
+ .
+ In some cases, a weaker relationship like <code>Suggests</code> or
+ <code>Recommends</code> is more appropriate.
diff --git a/tags/r/rubygem-homepage.tag b/tags/r/rubygem-homepage.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1cc1523
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/rubygem-homepage.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+Tag: rubygem-homepage
+Severity: warning
+Check: languages/ruby
+Explanation: The <code>Homepage</code> field in this package's
+ control file refers to Rubygems, and not to the true upstream.
+ .
+ Debian packages should point at the upstream's homepage, but
+ Rubygems is just another packaging system. You may be able to
+ find the correct information in the <code>Homepage</code> link
+ of the corresponding Rubygems package.
+See-Also:
+ Bug#981935
diff --git a/tags/r/rules-do-not-require-root.tag b/tags/r/rules-do-not-require-root.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..05297b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/rules-do-not-require-root.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+Tag: rules-do-not-require-root
+Severity: classification
+Check: debian/control/field/rules-requires-root
+Renamed-From:
+ rules-does-not-require-root
+Explanation: The sources can build the installation packages without using
+ <code>fakeroot(1)</code> or similar.
+See-Also:
+ /usr/share/doc/dpkg/spec/rootless-builds.txt,
+ debian-policy 4.9.2,
+ debian-policy 5.6.31
diff --git a/tags/r/rules-require-build-prerequisite.tag b/tags/r/rules-require-build-prerequisite.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2e8f98e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/rules-require-build-prerequisite.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+Tag: rules-require-build-prerequisite
+Severity: error
+Check: debian/rules
+Renamed-From:
+ missing-build-dependency
+ missing-python-build-dependency
+Explanation:
+ The code in <code>debian/rules</code> requires a prerequisite
+ that is not presently listed in the package's <code>Build-Depends</code>.
+ .
+ In the special case of Python, affected packages should <code>Build-Depend</code>
+ on one of <code>python3</code>, <code>python3-all</code>, <code>python3-dev</code>,
+ or <code>python3-all-dev</code>. Which one depends on whether a package supports
+ multiple Python versions, and also whether the package builds Python modules
+ or uses Python only as part of the build process.
+ .
+ Packages that depend on a specific Python version may build-depend
+ on any appropriate <code>pythonX.Y</code> or <code>pythonX.Y-dev</code> package
+ instead.
+ .
+ The condition you see in the context is not a recommendation on what to add. If
+ you see a list, more than likely only one member is needed to make this tag go
+ away. You probably also do not need the <code>:any</code> multiarch qualifier,
+ if you see one.
+See-Also: debian-policy 4.2
diff --git a/tags/r/rules-require-root-explicitly.tag b/tags/r/rules-require-root-explicitly.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ae49e3d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/rules-require-root-explicitly.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Tag: rules-require-root-explicitly
+Severity: classification
+Check: debian/control/field/rules-requires-root
+Renamed-From:
+ rules-requires-root-explicitly
+Explanation: The sources require <code>fakeroot(1)</code> or similar to build
+ the installation packages and also explicitly declare that need via the field
+ <code>Rules-Requires-Root</code> in the source stanza of the file
+ <code>debian/control</code>.
+See-Also:
+ /usr/share/doc/dpkg/spec/rootless-builds.txt,
+ debian-policy 4.9.2,
+ debian-policy 5.6.31
diff --git a/tags/r/rules-silently-require-root.tag b/tags/r/rules-silently-require-root.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..43c109d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/rules-silently-require-root.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+Tag: rules-silently-require-root
+Severity: info
+Check: debian/control/field/rules-requires-root
+Renamed-From:
+ should-specify-rules-requires-root
+Explanation: These sources require  <code>fakeroot(1)</code> or similar to build
+ the installation packages, but the field <code>Rules-Requires-Root</code> is
+ empty or missing.
+ .
+ At least the shown path in the indicated installation package is owned by user
+ (or a group) other than <code>root:root</code>.
+ .
+ Over time, Debian has successively narrowed the steps for which elevated privileges
+ are required. It speeds up the building of installation packages in the archive.
+ .
+ Please declare whether the sources require root privileges. Eventually, Debian will
+ switch the default archive-wide behaviour to expedite the build process.
+ .
+ You can use the field <code>Rules-Requires-Root</code> in the source stanza of
+ <code>debian/control</code> to declare the required build privileges.
+See-Also:
+ /usr/share/doc/dpkg/spec/rootless-builds.txt,
+ debian-policy 4.9.2,
+ debian-policy 5.6.31
diff --git a/tags/r/run-parts-cron-filename-contains-illegal-chars.tag b/tags/r/run-parts-cron-filename-contains-illegal-chars.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4075a10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/run-parts-cron-filename-contains-illegal-chars.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+Tag: run-parts-cron-filename-contains-illegal-chars
+Severity: warning
+Check: cron
+Explanation: The script in /etc/cron.&lt;time-interval&gt; will not be executed by
+ run-parts(8) because the filename contains a "." (full stop) or "+" (plus).
+ .
+ It is recommended to use "&lowbar;" (underscores) instead of these symbols.
+See-Also: run-parts(8), debian-policy 9.5.1
diff --git a/tags/r/runtime-test-file-is-not-a-regular-file.tag b/tags/r/runtime-test-file-is-not-a-regular-file.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..721cf73
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/runtime-test-file-is-not-a-regular-file.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+Tag: runtime-test-file-is-not-a-regular-file
+Severity: info
+Check: testsuite
+Explanation: A runtime test listed by debian/tests/control is not a regular
+ file or a relative symbolic link to a regular file in the source
+ package.
+See-Also: https://salsa.debian.org/ci-team/autopkgtest/tree/master/doc/README.package-tests.rst
diff --git a/tags/r/runtime-test-file-uses-installed-python-versions.tag b/tags/r/runtime-test-file-uses-installed-python-versions.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3b7c0f2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/runtime-test-file-uses-installed-python-versions.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+Tag: runtime-test-file-uses-installed-python-versions
+Severity: warning
+Check: testsuite
+Explanation: The specified file appears to use <code>py3versions -i</code>
+ to determine the "installed" Python versions.
+ .
+ However, this can cause issues if a Python transition is in progress
+ as the <code>-minimal</code> variant of the previous version
+ (eg. <code>python3.X-minimal</code>) remains installed in many environments.
+ This variant then provides enough of an interpreter to count as being
+ "installed" but not enough for the tests themselves to succeed in most
+ cases. This then prevents the overall transition from taking place.
+ .
+ Please replace this will a call to all "supported" packages instead
+ (eg. <code>py3versions -s</code> and ensure <code>python3-all</code> is listed
+ in the test dependencies.
+See-Also: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/03/msg00280.html
diff --git a/tags/r/runtime-test-file-uses-supported-python-versions-without-test-depends.tag b/tags/r/runtime-test-file-uses-supported-python-versions-without-test-depends.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f23e167
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/runtime-test-file-uses-supported-python-versions-without-test-depends.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+Tag: runtime-test-file-uses-supported-python-versions-without-test-depends
+Severity: warning
+Check: testsuite
+Renamed-From:
+ runtime-test-file-uses-supported-python-versions-without-python-all-build-depends
+Explanation: The specified file appears to use <code>py3versions -s</code> to
+ determine the "supported" Python versions without specifying
+ <code>python3-all</code> (or equivalent) as a test prerequisite.
+ .
+ With only the default version of Python installed, the autopkgtests may
+ pass but the package subsequently fails at runtime when another,
+ non-default, Python version is present.
+ .
+ Please add <code>python3-all</code> as a test prerequisite via <code>Depends</code>
+ in <code>debian/tests/control</code>.
diff --git a/tags/r/rust-boilerplate.tag b/tags/r/rust-boilerplate.tag
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8e06c7e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tags/r/rust-boilerplate.tag
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+Tag: rust-boilerplate
+Severity: warning
+Check: languages/rust
+Explanation: The description for the named installable was created by
+ a template in the Rust toolchain but not subsequently modified.
+ .
+ Please amend the default description provided by <code>debcargo</code>
+ in <code>debian/control</code>.
+ .
+ Within the Rust toolchain you can also conveniently add something like
+ the following example to <code>debian/debcargo.toml</code>:
+ .
+     [packages.bin]
+     summary = "Command-line benchmarking tool"
+     description = """
+     Hyperfine is a benchmarking tool similar to 'time' that offers
+     many additional features.  One can easily arrange repeated runs
+     and export results in formats like CSV or JSON.
+     """
+See-Also:
+ https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/RustPackaging