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

Re: lintian & linda

Hi Lars,

* [ 11-04-05 - 13:25 ] Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.iki.fi> wrote: 
>  ma, 2005-04-11 kello 13:19 +0200, Emanuele Rocca kirjoitti:
>  > It would be very nice to add these to linda's description.
>  > This way, every user can decide to install linda rather than lintian if
>  > they need these specific features.
>  Given that the two tools have different sets of tests, even if many of
>  them overlap, there is no point in not installing and using both. The
>  fact that they have different tests is pretty obvious in that they are
>  different programs, so I don't even feel there is a point in enumerating
>  the tests in the descriptions, or anything.

The fact that they run different sets of tests is not so obiouvs; the
Developer's Reference states it [1] and I don't see why it should not be
noted in the long description too.

"The extended description should describe what the package does and how
it relates to the rest of the system". [2]

It seems that there is also a difference in the execution speed, which
is IMHO worth mentioning.
"...she (linda) checks packages a lot faster than lintian". [3]
"Lintian, although written in Perl, is unwieldy and slow". [4]

Moreover, since it is useful to run both of them, they could mutually 
add their 'relative' in the Suggests field.

My 2 cents.

[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ap-tools.en.html#s-linda
[2] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s-extendeddesc
[3] http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2002/12/
[4] http://people.debian.org/~stevenk/linda/

Reply to: