Re: another patch/tag
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 08:13:30PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>> Tag: debhelper-but-no-miscDepends
>> Type: warning
>> Severity: normal
>> Certainty: certain
>> Ref: debhelper(7)
>> Info: The source package uses debhelper but it does not have
>> ${misc:Depends} on
>> the given binary package debian/control entry. This is required so the
>> dependencies are set correctly in case the result of a call to any of
>> the
>> dh_
>> commands cause the package to depend on another package.
>>
>> I used Type: warning, because of debhelper(7)'s note:
>
> I like the general idea of this tag. But given the fact that only
> rarely used debhelper commands actually use misc:Depends I would
> either first check if the program actually uses those and only
> then issue the tag or would go for info for now and discuss this
> on debian-devel first before making it a warning.
>
> For reference, these are the debhelper commands using misc:Depends:
> $ grep -l misc:Depends /usr/bin/dh_*
> /usr/bin/dh_gconf
> /usr/bin/dh_gtkmodules
> /usr/bin/dh_installcatalogs
> /usr/bin/dh_installdebconf
> /usr/bin/dh_installtex
> /usr/bin/dh_installxfonts
> /usr/bin/dh_installxmlcatalogs
> /usr/bin/dh_pangomodules
Although I completely agree, I think it is time to think about some kind of
script that generates the lists of commands, packages, etc, that are
hard-coded. The more data is hard-coded, the harder it will be to keep
everything up to date.
By the way, I remember seeing at least in a proposed RG that they wanted to
make sure packages using debhelper should depend on ${misc:Depends}. Just a
reminder, nothing that lintian should take care about, yet.
>
> dh_installdebconf is probably the most used one and you will get a
> warning on the binary packages for this one anyway.
Yup.
>
> Gruesse,
Cheers,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Reply to: