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

Vendor profiles and Lintian-extras



Hey

Earlier today I thought about mixing the Vendor-profiles with the
"Lintian-extras" idea[1].  There are a few loose ends with this and it
may not be the best solution.  Nevertheless I figured I would put it out
and see what you think about it.

Basically the current profiles semantics are (most likely) not
sufficient for doing lintian-core + lintian-$foo + lintian-$bar setups.
  So the idea was to allow something like .d dir for profiles.  In a
file-system view:

  profiles/$vendor/$profile.profile
  profiles/$vendor/$profile.d/$foo
  profiles/$vendor/$profile.d/$bar
  ...

In this way, lintian-$foo could simply install debian/main.d/$foo and
pling, Lintian would now use the extras from $foo.  Personally I think
something like this would be the best way to allow both profiles and
lintian-foo extensions at the same time.

Of course; this is no way solves the "How to detect that the user wants
lintian-$foo or is missing lintian-$bar".  In fact it may very well
complicate it, but generally I am not sure how we would do that in a
sane way.
  All solutions I can think of that warns during package check would
involve with messages like:

"""
N: Cannot run check X, Y,..., Z on pkg K since their dependencies
N: are missing.  These checks might be relevant to the package.
"""

Alternatively we would get a "Cannot run check X (and Y others)".  Think
a couple of vendors deep that all uses a lintian-$vendor-$foo approach
and I am no longer sure this scales well enough.

So, do anyone have any alternative ideas or strategies for the lintian
-> lintian-core, lintian-foo, lintian-bar split?  Particularly would the
suggested change to the vendor specification be useful for this or not?

~Niels

[1] The Lintian-extras mentioned here:
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-lint-maint/2010/08/msg00012.html


Reply to: