Hi, Am 08.03.2009 um 17:26 schrieb Ben Walton: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Sun Mar 08 12:03:27 -0400 > 2009: >> On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 11:54:58AM -0400, Ben Walton wrote: >>> I submitted a patch for checkpkg a while back to solve this. >>> Packages >>> validated as a 'set' could reference other packages in the set as >>> dependencies without checkpkg failing. I'm not sure what happened >>> to it. >> >> erm... i think we had a discussion with dago, and we agreed to go in >> [x direction], which was a little different than your original >> patch, and >> you said you would work on that direction...? :-) > > ...Which I did. I had wanted to allow for exclusions in checkpkg. > This would have been used from GAR to tell checkpkg to ignore > dependency foo since it was for an as yet unknown package. This would > have helped in the situation where you're developing a new package > that builds multiple packages with internal dependencies (lib, rt, > etc). > > You didn't like that approach since it gives control to the maintainer > and could be abused. While I disagreed with you on this[1], I did go > back and put together a patch that let checkpkg save some state > between package checks. This info allowed for a post-set validation > of library and P package dependencies. This is the patch I referred > to previously. > > -Ben > > [1] It's already possible for a maintainer to do whatever they want to > checkpkg and/or GAR to circumvent anything they want...I did this to > test my checkpkg changes. It still has to pass by the officially > blessed checkpkg before release, so I didn't think there was anything > wrong with it. If a maintainer chose to alter either of the above in > such a way that bad packages slip through, the worst case scenario is > that you get annoyed every time you kick back a broken package. In > doesn't really matter, this is just my opinion. Having checkpkg do > 'set' validation solves the same problem.
Yes. The usual reaction when checkpkg signals an error is - look if it really is an error - if not, just turn checkpkg off and submit the package anyway Everything which checks more and bails out later is good. Best regards -- Dago _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
