d
to use that bug to track the addition of this sort of module system.
What do the other Lintian maintainers think about this?
One nice property of a check-based module system is that a module can then
drop in additional collection scripts as needed without having to do
anythin
severity of one tag: I downgraded ocaml-stray-cmo from
normal to minor on the grounds that the long tag description says that the
file is just useless, not actually harmful, which makes it a minor bug
instead of a normal bug. Let me know if that's not correct.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debi
ivial C code with functions that
return a constant int or something) and packs some of them into *.a files
would be able to test all of these tags.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debia
that symlinks the unpack and collection directories and
then runs a set of custom checks that do just the Ocaml-specific stuff,
and run both regular Lintian and your wrapper on Ocaml packages. I'm
not sure if I really like that idea, though
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
nt dependencies. It also constrains maintenance in
the future, since lintian.d.o is on a stable system. So yes, I think pure
Perl would be better.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t;.
I tried to do a search at the time to figure out what was going on and
that was the result that I got at the time, but it's entirely possible
that I botched the search.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema
6 matches
Mail list logo
