Re: Status of 1.23.17
Jeroen van Wolffelaar <jeroen@wolffelaar.nl> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 03:43:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> lintian is a wonderfully relaxing thing to work on while on vacation in
>> the beautiful Pacific Northwest. :)
> Didn't you get the memo? Vacation != work!! :)
Hah. This isn't work. *grin*. Work is meetings and politics and release
strategies and user notification. This is just fun. :)
> Fine, but I don't think it's really *important* to artificially restrict
> the amount of fixes... more the better, I'd say :).
*laugh*. Okay, maybe I won't stop completely.
> Yeah, lintian is quite evolved, and it's still halfway from moving from
> lots of seperate binaries (all of checks/ were separate perl scripts in
> 1.22) to using perl modules: collection still is separate binaries.
> And yes, there's a *lot* of code to refactor if one has the time for
> that, a lot of historic decisions make now a little bit less sense I'd
> say.
For a lot of refactoring, this can be done incrementally without any
specific plan, but with a few things it probably would be best to have a
plan for others to vet. I'll see if I can find a few good opportunities
and then write up a plan.
Is there any reason to make lintian's libraries look more like
traditionally named Perl modules? I can't really think of anything that
it's likely to hurt off-hand, but right now most of the modules have very
generic names that I suppose could potentially conflict with something,
and I keep noticing that and it keeps vaguely itching at me. I should
probably just get over it. :)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: