Re: RFH lintian too hush
Diverting to lintain-maint, where this is more appropriate...
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 10:26:13PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 07:26:35PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 05:10:21PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> <snip what="warnings found by others, but by me"/>
> > > According the manual page of lintian is there a check for "huge /usr/share".
> > > Conglomerate 0.7.14-1[1] is about 1.4 Mb with a 1.2Mb /usr/share,
> > > but lintian didn't complain about that huge /usr/share.
> > > IMNSHO it makes sense to at least warn about a u.s. of more one megabyte.
> > >
> > > Did I use lintian incorrect
> Oops, indeed I didn't tell that I didn't provide any optional flags.
>
> > > or is it triggered at a larger /usr/share ?
> > > (then please tell me at which size )
> >
> > Please tell use HOW you use lintian if you want to know IF you used it
> > incorrect, I cannot magically see how you use lintian.
>
> ( wget http://www.stappers.nl/gst/pool/main/c/conglomerate/conglomerate_0.7.14-1_powerpc.deb )
>
> lintian conglomerate_0.7.14-1_powerpc.deb
>
> So no extra flags. That is based on lintian manual page.
>
> -c, --check
> Run all checks over the specified packages. This is the default
> action.
>
> The idea is the use the default action to get _all_ checks.
It hides the ones that are more likely to be incorrect and annoying than
to actually be useful...
> But I was looking for the hugh /usr/share so I tried
>
> lintian -C hus conglomerate_0.7.14-1_powerpc.deb
(...)
> But still no sign of the hugh /usr/share
-C will limit the number of tests done, rather than doing all. Note that
in both of the above cases, the test is performed, but just hidden for
you.
> > Regarding this check, see /usr/share/lintian/checks/huge-usr-share, and
> > note that due to its new, experimental nature, it is only displayed when
> > you enable informative checks, by means of lintian -I.
>
> Hey a -I flag, lets try it:
>
> $ lintian -I conglomerate_0.7.14-1_powerpc.deb
> I: conglomerate: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 4448kB 86%
>
>
> Okay, I found what I was looking for ....
> What is a constructive way to solve our different expections
> of _all_ checks and "forceing hus check" versus the -I flag?
Dunno, -C et al are IMHO to be discouraged, are only for very rare,
specialized uses. I'm actually in favour of dropping them from the
--help, and in manpage, maybe even move all that advanced stuff to a
different manpage/chapter. Regular maintainers shouldn't ever need that
option, it's only needed if you're doing some QA stuff or mass-checking,
and then you need to read the code anyway...
> (next is dutch, native language for me and probably also for Jeroen
> Wat is een opbouwende manier om ons verschil in verwachtingen
> bij _alle_ test en de "geforceerde hus test" tegenover
> de -I optie op te lossen?)
I understood the English part fine :), indeed, Dutch is my native
language, as you have guessed from my .nl email.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: