On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 18:17:01 +0200 bardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was playing with namcap in my cache: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ for i in /var/cache/pacman/pkg/* ; do namcap $i >> > ~/badpackages.log ; done > > I know a lot of these warnings are well known (like apache's > non-standard file locations, or dependencies from gcc), but others are > not. Could such a file be helpful to devs? Should I post it, maybe > grepping here and there? > > Also, could it be a good (and possible) thing, creating a db to store > all exceptions, such that non-needed warnings are not displayed? The > main difficulty I see in this is distinguishing the official packages > from "tainted" personalized or malicious ones... > > > bardo
How would your file be different from anyone else's? A developer's perhaps? You know you could just run namcap /var/cache/pacman/pkg/* > ~/badpackages.log... As long as developers are doing their jobs, they should have run namcap on the package before pushing it to the server. Shouldn't that information be the same? I've always wanted to keep namcap a simple rule-based package checker. I wouldn't want to sully its simplicity with an exception db. Also, who would maintain it? How often would it be updated? Who says what messages are non-needed? Jason -- Two years ago, I generated a gpg key that expired August 24, 2006 (686FD13C). I've now generated a new one (C7EFE9F4).
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
