Diverting to lintain-maint, where this is more appropriate... On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 10:26:13PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 07:26:35PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 05:10:21PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > <snip what="warnings found by others, but by me"/> > > > According the manual page of lintian is there a check for "huge > > > /usr/share". > > > Conglomerate 0.7.14-1[1] is about 1.4 Mb with a 1.2Mb /usr/share, > > > but lintian didn't complain about that huge /usr/share. > > > IMNSHO it makes sense to at least warn about a u.s. of more one megabyte. > > > > > > Did I use lintian incorrect > Oops, indeed I didn't tell that I didn't provide any optional flags. > > > > or is it triggered at a larger /usr/share ? > > > (then please tell me at which size ) > > > > Please tell use HOW you use lintian if you want to know IF you used it > > incorrect, I cannot magically see how you use lintian. > > ( wget > http://www.stappers.nl/gst/pool/main/c/conglomerate/conglomerate_0.7.14-1_powerpc.deb > ) > > lintian conglomerate_0.7.14-1_powerpc.deb > > So no extra flags. That is based on lintian manual page. > > -c, --check > Run all checks over the specified packages. This is the default > action. > > The idea is the use the default action to get _all_ checks.
It hides the ones that are more likely to be incorrect and annoying than to actually be useful... > But I was looking for the hugh /usr/share so I tried > > lintian -C hus conglomerate_0.7.14-1_powerpc.deb (...) > But still no sign of the hugh /usr/share -C will limit the number of tests done, rather than doing all. Note that in both of the above cases, the test is performed, but just hidden for you. > > Regarding this check, see /usr/share/lintian/checks/huge-usr-share, and > > note that due to its new, experimental nature, it is only displayed when > > you enable informative checks, by means of lintian -I. > > Hey a -I flag, lets try it: > > $ lintian -I conglomerate_0.7.14-1_powerpc.deb > I: conglomerate: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 4448kB 86% > > > Okay, I found what I was looking for .... > What is a constructive way to solve our different expections > of _all_ checks and "forceing hus check" versus the -I flag? Dunno, -C et al are IMHO to be discouraged, are only for very rare, specialized uses. I'm actually in favour of dropping them from the --help, and in manpage, maybe even move all that advanced stuff to a different manpage/chapter. Regular maintainers shouldn't ever need that option, it's only needed if you're doing some QA stuff or mass-checking, and then you need to read the code anyway... > (next is dutch, native language for me and probably also for Jeroen > Wat is een opbouwende manier om ons verschil in verwachtingen > bij _alle_ test en de "geforceerde hus test" tegenover > de -I optie op te lossen?) I understood the English part fine :), indeed, Dutch is my native language, as you have guessed from my .nl email. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl