Chris Lamb:
> Chris Lamb wrote:
>
>> <lamby> Can we not blacklist gcc-8-cross-ports fornow re. #890873?
> […]
>> <lamby> At this point I think even a hacky list of exceptions in the
>> code would be preferable to being so behind.
>
> My first stab at a patch for blacklisting in the meantime:
>
> https://gist.github.com/lamby/20bd2c85f77a501fdc7a6db058b06ff4/raw
>
>
> Regards,
>
Thanks for having a look at this.
I have one design concern; I think the blacklist should be global and
not per archive. Note that lintian merges packages across archives into
a single group (i.e. it takes the source and binaries from one archive
and merges it with the binaries from the other archive to support dbgsym
processing).
From that perspective, a per-archive blacklist seems rather awkward
because it is not immediately clear what it means to blacklist a source
in one archive if it happens to exist in another archive as well. Not
to mention, you would still see gcc-8-cross-ports being processed (but
now we would only process the dbgsym packages).
If you change the config handling to make the blacklist was "global"
(i.e. apply to all archives), then every thing will probably "just
work(tm)".
Nits:
=====
On the more minor side of things, I would have liked to see lintian
still record the packages that are blacklisted (and mark them as such in
the reports). E.g. to catch now obsolete backlists. However that can
certainly appear later.
We will probably want to map the blacklist into a hashref so we can do
O(1) testing to see if a source is blacklisted if the blacklist grows
more than a handful of packages. I hope it is unnecessary, but noted in
case you find "return if exists($blacklist->{$src});" more readable than
"return if grep { $src eq $_ } @{$blacklist};".
Thanks,
~Niels
