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

Re: Question for a lintian check



Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> writes:

> I'm currently writing some lintian checks for mozilla-related packages,
> and I'm trying to come up with a test that would check some
> dependencies.

> Iceape extensions used to provide a /var/lib/iceape/chrome.d/something
> file in order for update-iceape-chrome to do its job and register the
> extension chrome for use in iceape.

> Starting with iceape 2.0, this process became useless, but on the other
> hand, not providing the file means the package won't work with earlier
> versions of iceape.

> OTOH, such packages usually depend on something like iceweasel |
> iceape-browser, such that either one can be installer, or both.

> The dependency that is expected in such a case (a package not providing
> the /var/lib/iceape/chrome.d/something file) is iceweasel |
> iceape-browser (>= 2.0). This is just fine because such packages won't
> break earlier version of iceape anyways, they will just stop working
> there, while still working in iceweasel.

> Obviously the Lintian::Relation functions don't help much in that case.
> What would you advise to use ?

I think you can get there with Lintian::Relation; you just have to do some
preprocessing.  If the package does not include that chrome.d file, then
split its Depends on comma and then, for each element, see if
iceape-browser implies that element.  If that's true, then report your tag
and suggest changing to iceweasel | iceape-browser (>= 2.0).

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


Reply to: