Re: Build-Depends-Indep, please review
Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 07:09:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > Output at http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/build-rule-check.bz2
>> > I haven't had time to analyse this, if someone else wants to,
>> > that would be cool.
>> >
>> > Done on lintian.debian.org using the following:
>> >
>> > #!/bin/sh
>> >
>> > cd /srv/lintian.debian.org/laboratory/source
>> > find . -type f -name rules | grep 'debfiles/rules$' | while read rule
>> > do
>> > egrep -H '^(build(.*%)?|build-(arch|indep)):' "$rule"
>> > done
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Roger
>>
>> Now why does it only list 8k sources if it matches the required
>> "build:" target? Are 50% of all sources already dropping through that
>> grep because they use dh ('%:') or include files?
>
> That's what I think, and a cursory look at a few gives the same
> impression. Which is surprisingly good--there's only a single
> tool to update to get support added for a huge chunk of the
> archive (well, there's cdbs as well of course, so it's two main
> ones).
I would think dh already supports them. So we might actuay have >50%
coverage of binay-arch/indep already or verry close to it.
Maybe we can actualy change policy post squeeze because the majority of
sources supports it.
>> Anyway, grepping for sources that (probably) have build-arch/indep:
>>
>> % bzcat build-rule-check.bz2 | egrep '/rules:(build(.*%)+|build-(arch|indep)):' | cut -d":" -f1 | sort -u | wc -l
>> 572
>>
>> Lots of work to do.
>
> Agreed! But, should be an achievable goal for squeeze+1 if we start
> on it early.
>
> Regards,
> Roger
Totaly.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: