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: