Am Sonntag, den 08.04.2012, 22:03 +0200 schrieb Niels Thykier: > On 2012-04-05 12:40, Benjamin Drung wrote: > > Package: lintian > > Version: 2.5.6 > > Severity: minor > > > > Dear Maintainer, > > > > Please use `debian-distro-info --date=<iso 8601 date> --supported' > > to get a list of valid Debian distributions and > > `ubuntu-distro-info --date=<iso 8601 date> --supported' for a list of valid > > Ubuntu distributions. You can use libdistro-info-perl if you want to avoid > > a program execution. > > > > The output of the distro-info scripts can replace the static list in > > vendors/debian/ftp-master-auto-reject/data/changes-file and > > vendors/ubuntu/main/data/changes-file. > > > > FYI, distro-info will be backported to squeeze and I will keep the > > distro-info-data package up-to-date. > > Hi, > > I find the idea interesting, but I have two major concerns here. First, > distro-info (and its perl API) appears to assume that there are only > "two" vendors (namely Debian and Ubuntu). For me, this seems like a > regression now that we have allowed vendors to deploy their own data files.
Every vendor may have its own release process and therefore need its own data file and processing script. Debian has no LTS release and Ubuntu has nothing like testing. Other vendors can file a bug against distro-info to get them supported. > My other concern is that in order to use distro-info, it seems that I > need to know the "vendor" the package is targeted for. Unless we expose > Vendor information to checks, they will not be able to do this. While > we could do that, I (still) think it would be a bad idea (as explained > in [1]). Doesn't a profile needs to know target vendor? The distro-info calls should be part of the vendor profile. My proposal is to allow providing code to get a list of series instead of requiring a hard-coded list in data/changes-file. -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
