On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 05:30:48PM -0400, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:53:20PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > Package: wnpp > > Severity: wishlist > > Owner: Ralf Treinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > * Package name : debcheck > > Version : as of 2006/3/19 > > Upstream Author : Jerome Vouillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * URL : http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~vouillon/ > > * License : GPL > > Programming Lang: Objective Caml > > Description : Checks whether dependencies of debian packages can be > > satisfied > > > > This software checks for every package of a distribution (in the > > debian format .deb) whether it is possible to satisfy its dependencies > > and conflicts within this distribution. > > Looking at the docs the tool seems to be able to work on any set of > debian packages provided as Packages entries provided on standard input. > I would thus rephrase the above paragraph as: > > This software checks for a set of Debian packages (provided as > Packages entries) whether it is possible to satisfy the dependencies > and conflicts of all involved packages within the set. > > Better to ask for an advice of a native English speaker, but my point is > to emphasize "the set of packages" rather then "the distribution".
You are right. My usage of the word "distribution" comes from the terminology of the edos project http://www.edos-project.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome (where this tool, and many others, originated). In the context of this project a distribution is a set of packages containing possibly multiple versions of a package name. The debian reading of the word "distribution" excludes this. > > Preliminary packages are available at > > http://people.debian.org/~treinen/debcheck/ > > I suggest to add to the manpage an hint that the Packages file is a > suitable input for the tool. For the moment it is in the EXAMPLES section of the manpage, but I'll make this more explicit. > I saw that there is also an rpmcheck tool, which does the same for .rpm > packages. Don't you plan to package this as well? What about providing > an unique binary package (maybe called "pkgcheck") with the two > binaries? For the moment I create two binary packages, one with the debcheck tool for deb packages, and another one with the rpmcheck tool which does the analogous thing on rpm packages. I forgot to mention this in my ITP. > If you are worried about the size: upstream links them separately and > they are 130 Kb each, but I'm pretty confident that linking a single > executable with two different names and the usual speculation about > Sys.argv.(0) would dramatically cut down the total size ... I'll have a look into this, thanks for the suggestion. -Ralf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
