[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: discussion on perl module packaging

>>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 10:42:39 -0700 (PDT), "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <shaleh@valinux.com> said:

 Sean> On 17-Oct-2000 Stephen Zander wrote:
 >>>>>>> "Sean" == Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <shaleh@valinux.com> writes:
 Sean> Problem is, there is no way to determine what package a perl
 Sean> module came from. Further, lintian may be checking a package on
 Sean> a machine where neither the package or any of its dependencies
 Sean> are installed.
 >> The two relevant statements in perl are
 >> use Some::Module;
 >> and
 >> require Some::Module;

 Sean> this is already done

 >> or the perl equivalent.  To perform this check where the relevant
 >> package *is not* installed requires access to Contents-$(arch).gz.
 >> You may have to generate your own, cut-down version and include it
 >> with the lintian package.

 Sean> currently there is such a list in lintian.  Problem is that it
 Sean> is ALWAYS out of date.  I would like a solution that does not
 Sean> involved a file distributed with lintian.

 Sean> Problem with the contents file is that it a) requires net
 Sean> access or b) requires lintian be run on a mirror.  I could add
 Sean> a --on-mirror switch, but I was hoping we could come up with a
 Sean> better answer.

It seems to me that lintian will be run in two situations most
commonly and other situations should be ignored as uncommon

1) On a central debian server where a full and current Contents file
   is available.
2) On a developers machine where the perl module being used should
   already exist (else how are they testing).

So my suggestion would be to
1) Use a contents file specified from the conf file if it specifies
2) Use local *.list files if not 1.
3) Print an error when neither 1 nor 2 contain the package.


@James LewisMoss <dres@debian.org>      |  Blessed Be!
@    http://jimdres.home.mindspring.com |  Linux is kewl!
@"Argue for your limitations and sure enough, they're yours." Bach

Reply to: