Re: checks/fields rewrite

[Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>]

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/