Re: Refactoring unpack/list-${type}pkg and Read_pkglists
Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> writes:
> On 2011-07-13 01:07, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I don't think either architecture or standards-version are used. I
>> suspect we could drop both of those unless we wanted to generate
>> reports on the architecture and standards version used in the archive
>> for some reason. (And we could always add them back in later.)
> I am not sure architecture would make sense for that, since it is in the
> source file. Especially because we already extract the field (like the
> others) directly from the dsc in collection/fields.
Yeah, agreed.
> That being said, I am not objecting to getting rid of
> collection/fields and just caching the fields in Lintian::Collect. Half
> the fields are already cached in three other different modules.
*heh*. Yes. There's lots of duplication of some things like that.
> I don't suppose we have a sandbox setup we can use for testing the code?
We don't, really. I usually test the HTML reports by running the HTML
report generator on lintian.debian.org explicitly against the lintian.log
file that's there, or download the lintian.log file to my local machine
and run the html_reports script there and look at the results.
That of course doesn't help with testing the harness.
> The require './config' part? Sure; I was already considering to make a
> module for the config parsing in frontend/lintian (LINTIAN_ROOT is
> always set at that point anyway)
Yeah, that's it.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: