On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Loui Chang <louipc....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu 30 Sep 2010 12:10 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: >> On 30/09/10 11:56, Loui Chang wrote: >> >On Wed 29 Sep 2010 21:59 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: >> >>The checking of the package for $srcdir references was overly >> >>sensitive and gave a lot of what appear to be false positives with >> >>binary files (in particular with debugging symbols kept). >> >> >> >>Restrict the search for $srcdir to non-binary files as this should >> >>still catch the majority of configuration issues the check was >> >>initially designed to catch. Also, add a similar check for $pkgdir. >> > >> >Just curious. Shouldn't these checks really be part of namcap rather >> >than makepkg? >> >> How would namcap know where a package was built? > > I haven't thought of the implementation. How would you implement it?
I think he was asking you the same. :) > I wondered since namcap is the package checking tool that it should have > such functionality rather than makepkg itself. > > Perhaps makepkg could hand things off to namcap if the packager wishes > to check the package for any issues. This has come up several times, if we could check it in namcap, we would. It is nothing more than a warning printed to your screen so there really isn't much to it. Your suggestion would tie the two tools a lot closer together than they are now, and would still let these things go unnoticed if makepkg and namcap were run at differing times in the packaging process. -Dan
