I'm tempted to modify the Lintian check to do this:
* If gir1.2-foo-1.0 contains Bar-2.0.typelib and has
Provides: gir1.2-bar-2.0, then don't emit
typelib-package-name-does-not-match for it
* If libfoo-dev contains Bar-2.0.gir and Depends on gir1.2-foo-1.0,
and gir1.2-foo-1.0 is being processed in the same batch of packages,
and gir1.2-foo-1.0 has Provides: gir1.2-bar-2.0, then don't emit
gir-missing-typelib-dependency for it
and include that convention in the g-i mini-policy.
which would silence the warnings. What do people think of that plan?
Am 02.11.2017 um 16:33 schrieb Simon McVittie:
I'm tempted to modify the Lintian check to do this:
* If gir1.2-foo-1.0 contains Bar-2.0.typelib and has
Provides: gir1.2-bar-2.0, then don't emit
typelib-package-name-does-not-match for it
* If libfoo-dev contains Bar-2.0.gir and Depends on gir1.2-foo-1.0,
and gir1.2-foo-1.0 is being processed in the same batch of packages,
and gir1.2-foo-1.0 has Provides: gir1.2-bar-2.0, then don't emit
gir-missing-typelib-dependency for it
What I'm missing is, what we should recommend rdeps to do:
If a package say requires TrackerControl-2.0, should it depend on gir1.2-tracker-2.0 or the virtual gir1.2-trackercontrol-2.0?
If the latter, how would we enforce, that users depend on the "right"
package name?
On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 at 16:09:28 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 02.11.2017 um 16:33 schrieb Simon McVittie:
I'm tempted to modify the Lintian check to do this:
* If gir1.2-foo-1.0 contains Bar-2.0.typelib and has
Provides: gir1.2-bar-2.0, then don't emit
typelib-package-name-does-not-match for it
* If libfoo-dev contains Bar-2.0.gir and Depends on gir1.2-foo-1.0,
and gir1.2-foo-1.0 is being processed in the same batch of packages,
and gir1.2-foo-1.0 has Provides: gir1.2-bar-2.0, then don't emit
gir-missing-typelib-dependency for it
What I'm missing is, what we should recommend rdeps to do:
If a package say requires TrackerControl-2.0, should it depend on
gir1.2-tracker-2.0 or the virtual gir1.2-trackercontrol-2.0?
Either seems fine, particularly now that we have versioned Provides.
Using the more precise dependency (gir1.2-trackercontrol-2.0) makes
the dependency graph a little more complex for apt to disentangle, but
means we would be free to split gir1.2-tracker-2.0 with a minimum of
Breaks in future.
If the latter, how would we enforce, that users depend on the "right"
package name?
We don't currently have a way to enforce correct/sufficient dependencies
for users of g-i via Lintian or similar (we can't easily tell which g-i modules are used by Python or JavaScript code, and whether they're conditional or mandatory) so I don't think this is a regression.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 41:57:54 |
Calls: | 6,648 |
Files: | 12,193 |
Messages: | 5,329,573 |