diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
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_make: + . + Comments regarding the package + So far nothing to say + <possible notes regarding this package - if none, delete this file> + 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_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_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/*package*</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_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_make</code>. It can also happen when a maintainer + invokes the dh_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.<time-interval> will not be executed by + run-parts(8) because the filename contains a "." (full stop) or "+" (plus). + . + It is recommended to use "_" (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 |