On (06/03/17 14:38), Christian Heimes wrote:
>> B) it is not just an optional dependency. I tried to explain in 1st mail
>> that it should be a recomended dependency.
>Recommended != required
{Py,js}lint are not required ATM.
Just error message from configure is poorly phrased.

>Linting is a recommended tool for development. It's a totally optional
>thing for building and installing FreeIPA. The RPM spec is the best
>proof for that. Linting is not even a required tool for development. CI
>takes care of linting.
CI does not care of linting on other distributions.
At the moment lint is executed only on f25 in travis
(f26 of fedora rawhide, el7 are not covered)

ATM everything is fedora focused even BUILD.txt which is not ideal
from upstream POV. Therefore default checks in configure should not be focused
just for fedora.

>> C) Could you explain how it will be easier to develop on debian/other
>> distribution if upstream does not recommend to run "make lint".
>My PR does not discourage `make lint`.
But it does not recommend it; because missing pylint it is skipped with
combo "./configure && make install." in PR#502

So potential developers on other distributions needn't notice it
and with your PR they will not be able to run "make pylint"
in such situation; because the target will be disabled in case of
missing pylint.

rcrit, jcholast[1] and lslebodn think that it is better for upstream
to have default yes.

cheimes(you) and tkrizek prefer autodetection.

Democracy works. Please do not change default value and
improve error messages with hint how to disable the optional
*lint dependencies at configure time.


[1] https://github.com/freeipa/freeipa/pull/502#issuecomment-283569745

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to