Re: Planned / upcoming changes to Lintian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 2011-01-25 02:50, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi
>
Hey,
Here is a little status update for the day shift :D I have dealt with a
lot of perlcritic issues, but I noticed the test (t/critic.t) does not
run perlcritic on our checks. So the test results are bit better than
they should be.
I think it is because perlcritic itself assumes them to be
"uninteresting" by default (e.g. perlcritic checks/ only appears to
check checks/common_data.pm)
> I got a few todos hanging around in Lintian that I indent to deal with
> in this week.
>
> [...]
> I also intend to pull the commits from the infra-513663 branch about
> normalizing the prefix we use for file names with tags. There are 7
> commits about this as I recall. As this breaks overrides, the lintian
> version is bumped to 2.5.0 instead of 2.4.4 (assuming I understood you
> correctly Russ). This will also fix #534940 (note it only has a subset
> of the patches/commits attached).
>
Done this - since we already broke overrides, perhaps we could use the
opportunity to clean up a few tags as well. I am thinking that e.g.
file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile is clearly a subset of
non-etc-file-marked-as-conffile.
The difference between these two tags (other than the name +
description) is the certainty (certain vs possible), but they are still
both errors. Also lintian.d.o suggests the "usr" version is not emitted
currently.
> Other bugs / patches I am considering to fix / apply are:
> * #554006 - will apply with minor changes to comply with recent changes
> in Lintian.
Hah, turned out to have a couple of issues in it.
> [...]
> * #605744 - will apply as is, unless there are objections.
This one has been applied now.
> [...]
~Niels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=WxxQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: