Re: Bug#365087: ITP: debcheck -- Checks whether dependencies of debian packages can be satisfied
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:30:48PM -0400, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:53:20PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Owner: Ralf Treinen <email@example.com>
> > * Package name : debcheck
> > Version : as of 2006/3/19
> > Upstream Author : Jerome Vouillon <Jerome.Vouillon@pps.jussieu.fr>
> > * URL : http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~vouillon/
> > * License : GPL
> > Programming Lang: Objective Caml
> > Description : Checks whether dependencies of debian packages can be satisfied
> > This software checks for every package of a distribution (in the
> > debian format .deb) whether it is possible to satisfy its dependencies
> > and conflicts within this distribution.
> Looking at the docs the tool seems to be able to work on any set of
> debian packages provided as Packages entries provided on standard input.
> I would thus rephrase the above paragraph as:
> This software checks for a set of Debian packages (provided as
> Packages entries) whether it is possible to satisfy the dependencies
> and conflicts of all involved packages within the set.
> Better to ask for an advice of a native English speaker, but my point is
> to emphasize "the set of packages" rather then "the distribution".
You are right. My usage of the word "distribution" comes from the
terminology of the edos project
(where this tool, and many others, originated). In the context of this
project a distribution is a set of packages containing possibly
multiple versions of a package name. The debian reading of the
word "distribution" excludes this.
> > Preliminary packages are available at
> > http://people.debian.org/~treinen/debcheck/
> I suggest to add to the manpage an hint that the Packages file is a
> suitable input for the tool.
For the moment it is in the EXAMPLES section of the manpage, but I'll
make this more explicit.
> I saw that there is also an rpmcheck tool, which does the same for .rpm
> packages. Don't you plan to package this as well? What about providing
> an unique binary package (maybe called "pkgcheck") with the two
For the moment I create two binary packages, one with the debcheck tool
for deb packages, and another one with the rpmcheck tool which does the
analogous thing on rpm packages. I forgot to mention this in my ITP.
> If you are worried about the size: upstream links them separately and
> they are 130 Kb each, but I'm pretty confident that linking a single
> executable with two different names and the usual speculation about
> Sys.argv.(0) would dramatically cut down the total size ...
I'll have a look into this, thanks for the suggestion.