Re: RfC: Moving not-pkg-perl-team-specific lintian tests from pkg-perl-tools to lintian proper
On 2015-05-15 21:32, Axel Beckert wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hi Axel,
> I intent to move some lintian tests currently used by the Debian Perl
> Team an packaged in the pkg-perl lintian profile shipped with
> pkg-perl-tools into lintian.
>
> Reason is that some of the lintian checks in pkg-perl-tools are useful
> for either also non-perl packages or perl-packages not packaged by the
> Debian Perl Team.
>
That sounds great. :)
> All checks contained in pkg-perl-tools can be seen at
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-perl/packages/pkg-perl-tools.git/tree/lintian/checks/pkg-perl
>
> My main motivation is to get the check application-not-library with the
> following tags into lintian:
>
> * libapp-perl-package-name
> * library-package-name-for-application
> * application-in-library-section
>
> This check actually already supports also python and ruby libraries.
>
> Looking through the other checks, I'd consider the following tests
> also useful for others:
>
> [... snip list of tags ...]
>
> (This would only leave two team-specific checks, vcs and testsuite.)
>
> Those tags marked with "(*)" likely need to be renamed by adding the
> string "perl" somewhere.
>
I have not looked at the tags in details - I will try to have a look soon.
> I'd be happy to get at least some comments from Gregor and Damyan if
> they agree to have the pkg-perl lintian check written by them to be
> moved into lintian.
>
> I'd also would like to hear some comments by Niels and other Lintian
> contributors if they consider those tests also suitable for lintian
> proper.
>
Note that we do not have to keep the "pkg-perl" namespace when moving
them to Lintian. In fact, we should probably move them out of said
namespace as Lintian does not reserve it. You seem to be suggesting
exactly that later, so I guess we agree here. :)
> My plan for moving the tests is:
>
> * Coordinating the uploads of the first uploads of pkg-perl-tools and
> lintian after the move. Probably by first doing uploads to
> experimental first.
>
> * lintian will need according Breaks and Replaces header.
>
If we move the tags / checks into the lintian namespace, the Replaces
will become redundant. The breaks still makes sense though, as lintian
refuses to load two checks with the same tag.
> * I currently don't expect that pkg-perl-tools needs any such
> relations added.
>
Maybe a versioned dependency to ensure the moved tags are still
available (albeit under a different name).
> * pkg-perl-tools currently doesn't have any tests for these tags. I'd
> like to write test cases for these tags before I integrated them
> into lintian.
>
Great! We got a pretty awesome coverage state (on a tag level) and I
would certainly like to keep it that way. :)
"""
Coverage (Tags): 1044/1113 (93.80%), w. legacy tests: 1101/1113 (98.92%)
Coverage (Checks): 38/46 (82.61%), w. legacy tests: 40/46 (86.96%)
"""
> Hence the question: Is there a possibility to run Lintian's test
> suite on a specific lintian profile?
>
Yes, though it involves a code change.
In t/runtests, there is a line that looks like:
$data->{profile} ||= 'debian';
This is the profile used when the test does not declare a profile. This
is the closest thing we got. Mind you, tests that declare a profile is
intended to test profile related things.
> * The pkg-perl-tools tags are currently scattered over many tests.
> I'll try to integrated those tags into the current set of checks
> (mostly "fields" and "files" probably) where suitable as I think it
> wouldn't be good performance-wise to add 8 new checks to lintian for
> about a dozen new tags.
>
Except for start up time, there is not much of an issue in adding new
checks. On the flip side, I am rather concerned about the size of the
"fields" and the "files" check and our ability to accurately determine
what the check does.
A concern that was confirmed by 6b5f54d.
> * I'll probably work on feature branches in the pkg-perl-tools and
> lintian git repositories until I think everything's working fine.
>
> Regards, Axel
>
The general plan sounds good to me. As mentioned, I will try to find
some time to review the proposed tags soon. :)
Thanks,
~Niels
Reply to: