Re: Question for a lintian check

[Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 02:32:04PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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).

Thanks, it works. Though I'll have to group dependencies by package name after
splitting on comma (for e.g. package (>= x.y), package (<< z))

Cheers,

Mike