2006/11/21, André Detsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 11/20/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > full support would be equivalent > > > to reimplementing the parser that already exists in CheckDependencies > > > (which is being used by RecipeLint, anyway). To improve checking of > > > dependencies, the right approach is to improve the communication between > > > RecipeLint and CheckDependencies (which is where dependency checking > > > should take place). > > > > I agree to that this is the best approach, but that needs > > CheckDependencies to have some sort of API to handle this. > > André, as CheckDependencies maintainer, do you have any idea on how this > > could be implemented? Perhaps a --syntax option to CheckDependencies? > > Or a --mode=syntax (at this moment, we have --mode=all, missing, > updating and list). > > It won't be hard to implement. What exactly should it return? A > message for each old-style line at the Dependencies/BuildDependencies > files? Would this string be catch by RecipeLint or it would be printed > directly? > I think catch by RecipeLint, to keep track of errors encountered, though I'm not sure if it should generate an error per line malformatted or not. Make CheckDependencies return 1 for old dependency style (warning) and 2 for real errors.
-- /Jonas _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
