Re: Status on Vendor Profile
On Jun 1, 2011, at 00:31, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I finally pulled myself together and spent a little more time on the
> vendor-profile branch. On top of the basic profile support I added last
> time (back in April) we now have non-overridable tags.
> However, there are a number of things I would like some comments on,
> which I hope you will take some time to look at.
>
> First off - currently the base Debian profile and the ftp-master profile
> have to be generated via "debian/rules profiles". When the main profile
> is generated, the generator records all the checks in "checks/" and
> enables (only) those in the profile. This has the advantage that if
> someone dumps their own checks in the checks dir, Lintian will now
> ignore it in the Debian profile[1].
This sounds like a nice feature.
> The problem is how to handle this profile generation; for now I have
> not included the generated profile in git.
I'm not sure what you mean here - do you mean how to create profiles as in a type of configuration?
> As far as I can tell the
> best solution we have so far is to do just that and remember to update
> it when adding a new check (similar to t/COVERAGE or our data files).
I'm not familiar enough with the mechanism to comment effectively. I'd be happy to be a vendor profile guinea pig however and test vendor profile generation if that would be useful.
> On a related note: we can avoid rebuilding the ftp-master profile if we
> change the specification of profiles to allow referencing files
> containing tags. I think this might be a cleaner solution (open the
> ftp-master profile if you do not understand what I mean).
>
> Secondly there is the handling of the "default" profile. Originally I
> planned for this to be a symlink because it was easier (code-wise), but
> does git handle symlinks sanely? If not, we lose the "git clone + set
> LINTIAN_ROOT + run" property we have now in master (even with the
> changes above).
> Would it be better for us to instead rely on dpkg-vendor to supply a
> default profile name (either in general or in the absence of the default
> symlink)?
I think relying on dpkg-vendor would be the logical thing to do, but this is from a fairly naive perspective.
>
> Third, do we install profiles in /usr/share/lintian by the default or in
> /etc/lintian/profiles/ ? As I see it, there is a problem with both
> ways. The first one does not work too well with --root / $LINTIAN_ROOT
> changes; on the other hand if we install in /etc, it would overrule our
> development profiles by default. So I am leaning towards keeping them
> in $LINTIAN_ROOT, but I figured I would mention it.
Wouldn't the expectation that /etc/lintian/profile/foo override /etc/lintian/profile/debian? So wouldn't /etc/lintian/profiles be the right place? This seems consistent with Linux Standards Base practice.
Regards,
Jeremiah
>
> ~Niels
>
> [1] The embedded people have already been doing this in two of their
> packages.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4DE56C4A.7030408@thykier.net
>
>
Reply to: