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

Re: RfC: Moving not-pkg-perl-team-specific lintian tests from pkg-perl-tools to lintian proper



Hi Niels,

Niels Thykier wrote:
> Note that we do not have to keep the "pkg-perl" namespace when moving
> them to Lintian.

Sure.

> 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. :)

I didn't mention it explicitly, but planned to do so.

> > * lintian will need according Breaks and Replaces header.
> > 
> If we move the tags / checks into the lintian namespace, the Replaces
> will become redundant.

Indeed. Thanks for that hint!

> The breaks still makes sense though, as lintian refuses to load two
> checks with the same tag.

Good to know.

> > * 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).

I'd probably use a "Recommends: lintian (>= 2.3.XX)" since it's not
really a hard dependency and pkg-perl-tools to not enable the pkg-perl
lintian profile by default.

> >   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.
[...]

Thanks for all the details.

> > * 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.

Oh, ok.

> 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.

So that actually means, not merging those tests into fields.pm and
files.pm is actually preferred? That would make merging way easier!

> The general plan sounds good to me.  As mentioned, I will try to find
> some time to review the proposed tags soon. :)

Appreciated, thanks!

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE


Reply to: