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

[SCM] Debian package checker branch, master, updated. 2.5.11-177-gcb65eb1



The following commit has been merged in the master branch:
commit 048928053c02611693094f334d27af12f038a188
Author: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>
Date:   Tue Feb 19 14:36:28 2013 +0100

    c/scripts: Consider scripts in /usr/src/ as documentation
    
    ... for the purpose of determining what checks to run.
    
    Signed-off-by: Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>

diff --git a/checks/scripts b/checks/scripts
index 39f0d66..1559a45 100644
--- a/checks/scripts
+++ b/checks/scripts
@@ -222,8 +222,14 @@ for my $filename (sort keys %{$info->scripts}) {
     my $path;
     $scripts{$filename} = 1;
 
-    my $in_docs = $filename =~ m,usr/share/doc/,;
-    my $in_examples = $filename =~ m,usr/share/doc/[^/]+/examples/,;
+    # Consider /usr/src/ scripts as "documentation"
+    # - packages containing /usr/src/ tend to be "-source" .debs and usually
+    #   comes with overrides for most of the checks below.
+    # Supposedly, they could be checked as examples, but there is a risk
+    # that the scripts need substitution to be complete (so, syntax checking
+    # is not as reliable).
+    my $in_docs = $filename =~ m,^usr/(?:share/doc|src)/,;
+    my $in_examples = $filename =~ m,^usr/share/doc/[^/]+/examples/,;
 
     # no checks necessary at all for scripts in /usr/share/doc/
     # unless they are examples
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 3c6907d..f698d92 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -94,6 +94,8 @@ lintian (2.5.12) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
   * checks/rules:
     + [NT] Remove ant1.7 as alternative to ant as ant1.7 has been
       removed from Wheezy.
+  * checks/scripts:
+    + [NT] Treat scripts in /usr/src/ like they were documentation.
   * checks/shared-libs:
     + [NT] Special case gcc packages when looking for dev symlinks.
       gcc stores its dev symlinks in some special directories.

-- 
Debian package checker


Reply to: