Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> writes: > On 2011-01-06 20:18, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> As long as we have some way of marking some collections as transient >> and some collections to be retained, and then provide some way of >> overriding that, that sounds fine. I much prefer talking about >> everything as collections. We just need to retain the capability of >> generating a Lintian lab for the whole archive without including in the >> lab all the unpacked binary and source packages. > Currently the "repack" is never triggered as far as I can tell. The > reason why lintian properly cleans up is that collections like unpacked > contains the "Auto-removed: yes" line. This particular line is > currently overruled by the --keep-lab switch (or if the package lab > disappears, but that only happens on a remove action). Oh, right, I forgot Raphael had already taken care of that. Okay, that's all set, then. > There is the one unhandled case - namely if all collection scripts > contains "auto-remove: yes", then the directory itself will not be > removed... but then again we do not currently handle that anyway so it > will not be a regression. Yeah, and I don't think we'd ever do that anyway. > My current effort in the infra-513663 branch has been to encapsulate > packages inside the lab and reduce the complexity of the "PACKAGE: foreach". > I intend to let these Lab::Package instances take care of the > book-keeping inside its defined little space; my next goal is probably > to make collection book-keeping go in there as well (that is creation > and removal of the ".<script>-<version>" files). > I think once that is done the "PACKAGE: foreach" will be much simpler > (at least a lot shorter). Excellent! -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87tyhltmbu....@windlord.stanford.edu