On 2015-09-02 22:21, Axel Beckert wrote: > Hi, > > [...] > Niels: Which existing check would be best to add such a check? I'd > check at least debian/control, debian/copyright, debian/watch, and > debian/upstream/metadata (plus variants). Have you considered making a dedicated check for it? :) > Maybe fields.pm? The fields.pm check is testing fields in the .dsc file. Not to confused with control-file.pm which tests the d/control file (which itself should not to be confused with control-file*s*.pm. The latter checks the control files in binary packages). > debian/copyright doesn't necessarily need to have fields (i.e. if not > in DEP5 format) and debian/watch doesn't have fields either... > All the more reason for it to not go into fields.pm. The other being that fields.pm is rather large already. > Maybe split up the test using the same data file (I'd name it > data/*/obsolete-sites) and then using it in fields.pm, watch-file.pm > and copyright-file.pm separately? That is certainly an option. In that case, please put the data file in data/common. Please keep in mind that the Lintian::Data->new call should be *exactly the same* in all checks using it. A bit of a caveat, but in practise it has not been an issue to date. > But where to check debian/upstream/metadata and friends then? > > [...] > > Regards, Axel > I do not think we look at the file at all. You would have to make such a check. :) Thanks, ~Niels
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature