Hi Michael, > > > > +Tag: golang-missing-built-using > > +Tag: golang-built-using-on-arch-all > > > > These seem quite "clumsy" wordings and difficult to understand when > > out of context - can you try expanding them a little? > > Can you make a suggestion as to how they would be clearer please?
Hm. The difficult part of parsing it is the "built using" proper noun. I don't have any thing I love but have you tried adding more nouns, etc.? For example, golang-package-missing-built-using-{header,field}? Or missing-built-using-X-for-golang-package. Or golang-built-using- field-on-arch-all-package? Or arch-all-golang-package-{with,but}-built- using-{field,header}. Or something. :) > > + if ($arch eq 'all > > […] > > + if ($arch ne 'all' […] > What would you consider cleaner? It seems fine to me. I don't have a concrete example but my gut tells me there is a cleaner structure that uses the fact that if $arch is "all", we don't need to check 2 lines down that it is not "all". Again, nothing concrete but some kind of "else" statement? :p > > Are we missing a Test-Depends in the "desc" file too? :) > > > Not sure what you mean? Tests have a "/desc" file with Test-For, Test-Against etc. I am querying whether this file should also have something along the lines of: t/tests/elpa/desc: 5:Test-Depends: dh-elpa (Just a question, I don't have the answer to hand..!) Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-