Hey Earlier today I thought about mixing the Vendor-profiles with the "Lintian-extras" idea[1]. There are a few loose ends with this and it may not be the best solution. Nevertheless I figured I would put it out and see what you think about it.
Basically the current profiles semantics are (most likely) not sufficient for doing lintian-core + lintian-$foo + lintian-$bar setups. So the idea was to allow something like .d dir for profiles. In a file-system view: profiles/$vendor/$profile.profile profiles/$vendor/$profile.d/$foo profiles/$vendor/$profile.d/$bar ... In this way, lintian-$foo could simply install debian/main.d/$foo and pling, Lintian would now use the extras from $foo. Personally I think something like this would be the best way to allow both profiles and lintian-foo extensions at the same time. Of course; this is no way solves the "How to detect that the user wants lintian-$foo or is missing lintian-$bar". In fact it may very well complicate it, but generally I am not sure how we would do that in a sane way. All solutions I can think of that warns during package check would involve with messages like: """ N: Cannot run check X, Y,..., Z on pkg K since their dependencies N: are missing. These checks might be relevant to the package. """ Alternatively we would get a "Cannot run check X (and Y others)". Think a couple of vendors deep that all uses a lintian-$vendor-$foo approach and I am no longer sure this scales well enough. So, do anyone have any alternative ideas or strategies for the lintian -> lintian-core, lintian-foo, lintian-bar split? Particularly would the suggested change to the vendor specification be useful for this or not? ~Niels [1] The Lintian-extras mentioned here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-lint-maint/2010/08/msg00012.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
