On 3 August 2015 at 18:55, Michael Stapelberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry for the late reply. > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 19 June 2015 at 08:24, Michael Stapelberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Thanks. >>> >>> The overall approach looks good to me, >> >> Very glad to hear that :-) >> >>> but the patches still contain a fair >>> number of TODOs — I assume you’ll address them before sending them for a >>> merge? >> >> Oh yes, sorry, I actually meant to fix some of those before sending >> the patches (the ones asking if changes are still necessary) but >> clearly forgot. I'll certainly get those cleaned up before sending a >> patch in for merging. >> >> For this one: >> >> + # XXX Could do some consistency checks here e.g >> + # 1) make sure there is a devpkg if there is a libpkg >> + # 2) make sure devpkg depends on libpkg >> + # 3) make sure libpkg has "Provides: ${golang:Provides}" >> + # Maybe this is more in the realm of lintian. >> >> I'd welcome your input -- do you think it makes sense to check those >> things here? If so, I'll add the checks, if not, I'll just delete the >> comment :-) > > I think having this in lintian makes more sense, because then the > mechanism to override a false-positive is crystal clear to people, and > we don’t need to invent our own mechanism.
Makes sense. Another project to try to figure out :-) Cheers, mwh _______________________________________________ Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers
