Re: checks/fields rewrite
On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 09:42:44PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org> writes:
> > On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 11:00:46AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> >> Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org> writes:
> >> > @@ -202,6 +212,7 @@
> >> >
> >> > my (@seen_libstdcs, @seen_tcls, @seen_tclxs, @seen_tks, @seen_tkxs, @seen_libpngs);
> >> >
> >> > +#FIXME: this check is fully broken, or better: where is the check?
> >> Don't understand what you mean. The @seen_* arrays are used *after* the
> >> loop.
> > I actually meant the line below the comment:
> > print "E: $pkg $type: alternates-not-allowed $field\n"
> > if (! grep { $_ eq $field } qw(depends pre-depends recommends suggests));
>
> Oh, i had that one fixed in the second version I've sent to the list.
Ahh, seen it.
Checked the new version.
Some remaining issues:
1) While populating the @seen_* arrays you only honor the first
alternative, e.g.:
push @seen_libstdcs, $alternatives[0]->[0] if defined $known_libstdcs{$alternatives[0]->[0]};
Why is that?
2) In the dependency checking some tests do not make sense for all
relations. Partly you have honored that but it is missing for at least:
- needlessly-depends-on-awk (only check for (pre-)dep , rec, sug)
(btw. you seem to miss a ! here
- depends-on-libdb1-compat (dito)
- doc-package-depends-on-main-package (dito)
- depends-on-essential-package-without-using-version (dito)
3) The binary depends check misses the check
- package-has-a-duplicate-relation
4) The source depends check misses the checks
- depends-on-essential-package-without-using-version
- bad-relation
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
Reply to: