On Jun 1, 2011, at 00:31, Niels Thykier wrote: > Hey, > > I finally pulled myself together and spent a little more time on the > vendor-profile branch. On top of the basic profile support I added last > time (back in April) we now have non-overridable tags. > However, there are a number of things I would like some comments on, > which I hope you will take some time to look at. > > First off - currently the base Debian profile and the ftp-master profile > have to be generated via "debian/rules profiles". When the main profile > is generated, the generator records all the checks in "checks/" and > enables (only) those in the profile. This has the advantage that if > someone dumps their own checks in the checks dir, Lintian will now > ignore it in the Debian profile[1].
This sounds like a nice feature. > The problem is how to handle this profile generation; for now I have > not included the generated profile in git. I'm not sure what you mean here - do you mean how to create profiles as in a type of configuration? > As far as I can tell the > best solution we have so far is to do just that and remember to update > it when adding a new check (similar to t/COVERAGE or our data files). I'm not familiar enough with the mechanism to comment effectively. I'd be happy to be a vendor profile guinea pig however and test vendor profile generation if that would be useful. > On a related note: we can avoid rebuilding the ftp-master profile if we > change the specification of profiles to allow referencing files > containing tags. I think this might be a cleaner solution (open the > ftp-master profile if you do not understand what I mean). > > Secondly there is the handling of the "default" profile. Originally I > planned for this to be a symlink because it was easier (code-wise), but > does git handle symlinks sanely? If not, we lose the "git clone + set > LINTIAN_ROOT + run" property we have now in master (even with the > changes above). > Would it be better for us to instead rely on dpkg-vendor to supply a > default profile name (either in general or in the absence of the default > symlink)? I think relying on dpkg-vendor would be the logical thing to do, but this is from a fairly naive perspective. > > Third, do we install profiles in /usr/share/lintian by the default or in > /etc/lintian/profiles/ ? As I see it, there is a problem with both > ways. The first one does not work too well with --root / $LINTIAN_ROOT > changes; on the other hand if we install in /etc, it would overrule our > development profiles by default. So I am leaning towards keeping them > in $LINTIAN_ROOT, but I figured I would mention it. Wouldn't the expectation that /etc/lintian/profile/foo override /etc/lintian/profile/debian? So wouldn't /etc/lintian/profiles be the right place? This seems consistent with Linux Standards Base practice. Regards, Jeremiah > > ~Niels > > [1] The embedded people have already been doing this in two of their > packages. > > > -- > 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/4de56c4a.7030...@thykier.net > > -- 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/ca062a88-11af-41e5-8627-4bf6f26ff...@jeremiahfoster.com
