On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:12:56PM +1100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Thursday 14 May 2009 06:47:48 Sylvain Le Gall, vous avez écrit :
> > This kind of "external plugin" architecture can be a very good way for
> > packaging team to enhance their policy and their QA.
>
> Just to add my 2 cents: If the policy is one package + one lintian version =
> deterministic checks, then why not adding a flag in the package's control file
> that specifies which additional set of tests should be run when lintian is
> checked against it ?
>
> That way, it allows both optional tests and reproducibility...
.... urrrmmm, not really. The point here is also the extra need of
some language-specific tool which do not appear as lintian
dependency. So, even if I've a sympathy for your proposal,
reproducibility will not be ensured unless your field also specify
which extra package to install to support the required lintian
"plugin". But at that point it can be argued that we are getting a bit
overkilling ...
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature