[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#474590: [frontend] add a parsable reason for overrides and optionally require it



block 512901 with 474590
thanks

Hi all,

After thinking for a while about how to implement 474590 I think an approach 
like the one propposed in 512901 would be the best. This is based on two 
points:
* First, comment lines are already supported: adding something on the same 
line as the tag would break old lintians, and we don't want that. Introducing 
some other sort of comment lines would have the same effect.
* Second, I don't remember seeing any override file with comments where the 
comments were below the tag line.

My proposed parsing would then be:
# Comment explaining why the below tag is overridden
T: package: tag [extra [...]]
# Explanation for the following overrides, this comment
# should be re-used for the same tags, as duplicating the same information
# over and over again is useless. But it shouldn't be re-used for "bar-tag",
# nor any other tag other than "foo-tag"
T: package: foo-tag [extra [...]]
T: package: foo-tag [extra [...]]
T: package: bar-tag [extra [...]]

In order to properly implement/integrate #512901 maybe we should ask Jordà 
Polo to help us a bit, unless somebody wants to play with the reporting 
scripts :).

The implementation of #512901 is still a bit tricky because the comments need 
to be made available next to the overridden tags when --show-overrides is 
used so that reporting/harness sees them. Russ or anyone else: is there any 
suggestion on what letter to use to indicate that they are comments? "C"? 
another possibility would be to print them as "N" with some sort of format 
that harness could identify and parse.

Suggestions? Comments?

Cheers,
-- 
Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: