Tim Foster wrote: > On 07/11/12 09:23 AM, Danek Duvall wrote: > >Tim Foster wrote: > >>http://cr.opensolaris.org/action/browse/pkg/timf/pkglint-grab-bag/webrev > > Thanks for taking a look. > > >Have you run this over a recent WOS build to see if any of the new tests > >are triggering warnings? > > Yes, we're getting good mileage from the new check for SMF fmris, with lots > of new WARNINGs, but no new ERRORs.
Okay. You'll want to send out a heads-up to all the consolidations that might be affected, so they can decide whether to live with the warnings for U1 or squeeze fixes in now. > >pkglint_manifest.py: > > - line 550ff: is there no code that could be reused to parse the config > > file? > > Not that I've been able to find. There's some in pkg.actions.attribute, but > didn't seem to do what I was after - specifically, it doesn't pull apart the > comma-separated list of categories. Okay. I would have expected something similar in the gui, but perhaps it's different. I don't think it's worth worrying about, at least not for now. > > - line 644: it's not possible to skip a subtest like this, is it? I > > would think that not having a classification is something that we > > might require in Solaris, but not something everyone is going to > > care about (particularly since it's not especially useful, IMO). > > It would need to be marked as linted in all manifests that want to avoid > it, or more forcefully, we can move this test back into the > opensolaris-specific checks. > > Traditionally, we've always checked for 'info.classification' to allow > the GUI to display 3rd party packages in their proper categories, but if > we care less about info.classification, then now's the time to move it. Let's move it, then. Keeping the check for pkg.summary here is fine, though I might bring it down to a warning. Thanks, Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
