Re: couple of patches

[Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>]

Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Raphael Geissert writes:

>>> None of these require my previous changes to be applied, but would be
>>> great if the others could be applied as well.

>> I applied the first patch.  For the move of common_data, I agree that
>> this is an improvement over the current state, but except for
>> %known_arches, that data actually belongs in Lintian::Data.

> I though about doing that too, but I hesitated. Attached mbox does it all.

I applied this patch because it's an improvement over what we had
previously, but I think you misread my message.  What I'm saying is that
*all* of that data that you moved from one place to another should be in
Lintian::Data.  I want to get away from having these big static hashes in
the check scripts where we can and move that data into Lintian::Data,
where it's easier to edit and understand.  The same is true of all the
simple lists that's currently in the check/* scripts and didn't move.
(The regexes and the more complex data structures, such as the
interpreters in checks/scripts, probably need to stay Perl.)

But we don't have to do all of that right now and I definitely agree that
this is an improvement.  It also brings us fairly close to eliminating
common_data.pm, which I've wanted to do for a while.  Then we won't need
those extra use libs that are easy to forget and will be closer to having
a real module structure.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>