Bug#750863: Please include package contents information
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:28:46PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 18/03/15 at 13:21 -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:14:20PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:59:35AM -0700, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> > > > And I'd like to search for things like filename conflicts and compare
> > > > them to package metadata; for instance, do packages that ship the same
> > > > filename conflict or not, and do the versions of the conflict match the
> > > > versions that ship the same file? (That won't be perfect, since it
> > > > can't take diversions into account, which are unfortunately still
> > > > programmatic in maintainer scripts rather than being declarative.)
> > >
> > > these could be found by inspecting the Contents file - this is how it
> > > is done in [1]. This is today integrated in piuparts, code to find
> > > packages sharing a path name can be found in [2].
> > >
> > > [1] https://qa.debian.org/dose/file-overwrites.html
> > > [2] https://alioth.debian.org/scm/browser.php?group_id=30965
> >
> > Sure, though that's not correlated by version and package metadata the
> > way UDD is. But yeah, that use case is much lower priority for me than
> > the metadata issue (user/group/mode).
>
> Wouldn't this one be better solved as a lintian check?
The conflicts item? Lintian doesn't always have multiple packages
around for a simultaneous check.
The user/group/mode item? No, I'm not looking to write a specific
lintian check there; I'm trying to evaluate usage of specific
users/groups/modes as part of trying to find better ways to handle them.
- Josh Triplett
Reply to: