Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 03:43:53PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> lintian is a wonderfully relaxing thing to work on while on vacation in >> the beautiful Pacific Northwest. :) > Didn't you get the memo? Vacation != work!! :) Hah. This isn't work. *grin*. Work is meetings and politics and release strategies and user notification. This is just fun. :) > Fine, but I don't think it's really *important* to artificially restrict > the amount of fixes... more the better, I'd say :). *laugh*. Okay, maybe I won't stop completely. > Yeah, lintian is quite evolved, and it's still halfway from moving from > lots of seperate binaries (all of checks/ were separate perl scripts in > 1.22) to using perl modules: collection still is separate binaries. > And yes, there's a *lot* of code to refactor if one has the time for > that, a lot of historic decisions make now a little bit less sense I'd > say. For a lot of refactoring, this can be done incrementally without any specific plan, but with a few things it probably would be best to have a plan for others to vet. I'll see if I can find a few good opportunities and then write up a plan. Is there any reason to make lintian's libraries look more like traditionally named Perl modules? I can't really think of anything that it's likely to hurt off-hand, but right now most of the modules have very generic names that I suppose could potentially conflict with something, and I keep noticing that and it keeps vaguely itching at me. I should probably just get over it. :) -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
