Hi Nilesh, On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 12:27:02PM +0530, Nilesh Patra wrote: > Julian Gilbey <j...@debian.org>: > > I have come across a number of packages with a line in their > > debian/rules like: > > > > ifeq (,$(findstring nodocs, $(DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS))) > > > > This should be "nodoc", according to the "nodoc" entry in > > https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec#Registered_profile_names > > > > It would be good to check for this error. > > This mostly looks like a typo and I am kinda sure that you'd find typos like > this all over many places. I am a bit unsure if checks for this is something > we > as a new lintian warning is something that we even need?
Perhaps, perhaps not. It's not something that's easily spotted by eye unless you're explicitly looking for it. > Louis-Philippe Véronneau <po...@debian.org>: > > ... > > I've created a patch on Salsa that creates a new Lintian check for this. > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/-/merge_requests/504 > > And if we do -- I checked the MR and it does not look extensible. If in > future there comes another class of typos, it will result in a new patch of > this > kind. Instead, is it possible to have a list of offending terms like this in a > data list and warn the user about them via a lintian warning? > > For instance, we have data/fields/obsolete-packages for listing obsolete > packages and showing the user about the obsolete packages and their > replacements. Do you think a similar implementation for this > (data/fields/bad-buildprofiles ?) makes sense? Now *that's* a really nice approach. But here I'd suggest doing the opposite: checking for valid build options (and note: this is a check for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS, not for DEB_BUILD_PROFILES). There is a very short list of standard build options: those listed in dpkg-buildpackage(1) (parallel=n, nocheck, noopt, nostrip, terse, hardening=..., reproducible=..., abi=..., future=..., qa=..., optimize=..., sanitize=...) and https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec: nodoc Best wishes, Julian
