On 2013-09-07 19:00, Jonas Genannt wrote: > Package: lintian > Version: 2.5.17 > Severity: wishlist > Tags: patch > > Dear Lintian-Maintainer, >
Hi Jonas, Thanks for your interest in supplying Lintian checks for Ruby packages. > we the Debian Ruby Team would like to add some lintian checks for the Ruby > packages. > > Please see attched patch. > > Acknowledgment of Ruby pkg team: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2013/09/msg00011.html > > Would you please include that checks into the next release of Lintian? > Indeed, if they are generally useful to all ruby packages (i.e. even for packages maintained by people not in the pkg-ruby team). Though, for now I am trying to keep "team specific" checks separate. It looks like the checks you provided are of the "former" (despite $SUBJECT), so they should be mostly okay. Mind you, I am not sure that they proposed severities can be retained. I got a couple remarks about the check (interleaved in the patch below). Also, a little bonus trivia. Did you know you can have non-standard checks loaded via "--include-dir"? E.g. if you change the layout of the "ruby-lintian" git repository, so the checks are in a directory called "checks". $RUBY_LINTIAN_CHECKOUT/ checks/local my-check.desc my-check.pm profiles/local/main.profile Then: lintian --include-dir $RUBY_LINTIAN_CHECKOUT --profile local <pkg> will DTRT. I find that very useful for development and testing non-standard checks. :) > Thanks, > Jonas > > > > 0001-added-Ruby-pkg-team-checks.patch > > >>From d7a2bb97de6be5f125cbbd7d72ada75e95fa53be Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jonas Genannt <jo...@brachium-system.net> > Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 18:52:44 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] added Ruby pkg team checks > > --- > checks/ruby.desc | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > checks/ruby.pm | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > profiles/debian/main.profile | 2 +- > 3 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 checks/ruby.desc > create mode 100644 checks/ruby.pm > > diff --git a/checks/ruby.desc b/checks/ruby.desc > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..f635090 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/checks/ruby.desc > @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ > +Check-Script: ruby > +Author: Jonas Genannt <jonas.gena...@capi2name.de> > +Type: binary > +Info: Checks various Ruby PKG Team stuff >From what I can tell, these checks are not specific to pkg-ruby, so the description could use a minor fixup. > +Needs-Info: bin-pkg-control, index, scripts, unpacked I think these are all pretty much unused and can be dropped. At least, I cannot find anything requiring those at first glance. E.g. $info->field and $info->relation have no requirements. :) > + > +Tag: ruby-depends-on-ruby1.8 > +Severity: serious > +Certainty: certain > +Info: This package depends on ruby1.8, but ruby 1.8 is at its end of life. > + Please check your package against newer Ruby versions and update your > + dependencies to "ruby | ruby-interpreter", or in the worst case, to a newer > + Ruby version. > + . > + https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Packaging > + This particular tag looks like a case of depends-on-obsolete-package and its sister tag, build-depends-on-obsolete-package. Would you be okay with us just adding ruby1.8 to data/fields/obsolete-packages? > +Tag: ruby-depends-on-specific-ruby-version > +Severity: normal > +Certainty: certain > +Info: This package depends on a specific ruby version. > + Packages should not depend on a specific ruby version if possible, because > + this makes it harder to drop support for obsolete Ruby versions. Ideally > + packages should declare a dependency on Ruby using a generic > + "ruby | ruby-interpreter". > + . > + https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Packaging > + > +Tag: ruby-library-old-package-name-schema > +Severity: serious I am not quite sure we can retain this severity; dropping it to normal (W) might be more reasonable. > +Certainty: certain > +Info: Your ruby library package name does not fit the Debian standards for > Ruby. > + The package name does not fit the current naming scheme for Ruby packages. > + Ruby libraries should named like `ruby-foo`. Packages named libfoo-ruby* are > + deprecated. > + . > + https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Packaging > diff --git a/checks/ruby.pm b/checks/ruby.pm > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..89f1987 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/checks/ruby.pm > @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ > +package Lintian::ruby; > + Please insert a license header (like the one we have in all checks). > +use strict; > +use warnings; > + > +use Lintian::Collect::Binary (); No need for loading L::C::Binary. > +use Lintian::Tags qw(tag); > + > +sub run { > + my $pkg = shift; > + my $type = shift; > + my $info = shift; Replace with: my ($pkg, undef, $info) = @_; (the $type argument is not used in this check, see below). > + > + if ($type eq 'binary') { Always true (due to the Type field from the .desc file). This kind of check only makes sense, if the "Type"-field contains multiple types. E.g. Type: binary, udeb > + > + my $pkg_description = $info->field('description'); > + if ($pkg_description) { Why do you check if the description is present? While the description may be missing, I am pretty sure that "is_pkg_class" will correctly handle the absence of the description. > + if ($pkg =~ /^lib.*-ruby.*/ and > !$info->is_pkg_class('transitional') ) { ^^ The marked ".*" is redundant (as the regex is not anchored at the end), so it can be simplified to /^lib.*-ruby/. Alternatively, it can be rewritten as /^lib.*-ruby.*$/, but they will (still) match the same thing. > + tag 'ruby-library-old-package-name-schema'; > + } > + } > + > + my $str_deps = $info->relation('strong'); NB: $info->relation always returns a defined object, so the "boolean" check of $str_deps will always be true. If the underlying fields are missing, it will return an "empty-relation" object. > + if ($str_deps and $str_deps->implies("ruby1.8")) { > + tag 'ruby-depends-on-ruby1.8'; > + } > + > + if ($str_deps and $str_deps->matches(qr/^ruby[0-9.]+$/o) and > !$str_deps->implies("ruby1.8")) { TBH, I would probably just emit this tag even if "ruby1.8" is the trigger (since depending on ruby1.8 is technically a "specific" ruby version). In particular, if ruby-depends-on-ruby1.8 is replaced by the existing obsolete-package tags, then it makes even more sense (due to #686553). > + tag 'ruby-depends-on-specific-ruby-version'; > + } > + } > +} > + > +1; > +# Local Variables: > +# indent-tabs-mode: nil > +# cperl-indent-level: 4 > +# End: > +# vim: syntax=perl sw=4 sts=4 sr et > [...] > > -- 1.7.10.4 > With these minor things dealt with, I think we just need tests for the tags. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
