On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 07:26:35PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 05:10:21PM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: <snip what="warnings found by others, but by me"/> > > According the manual page of lintian is there a check for "huge /usr/share". > > Conglomerate 0.7.14-1[1] is about 1.4 Mb with a 1.2Mb /usr/share, > > but lintian didn't complain about that huge /usr/share. > > IMNSHO it makes sense to at least warn about a u.s. of more one megabyte. > > > > Did I use lintian incorrect Oops, indeed I didn't tell that I didn't provide any optional flags.
> > or is it triggered at a larger /usr/share ? > > (then please tell me at which size ) > > Please tell use HOW you use lintian if you want to know IF you used it > incorrect, I cannot magically see how you use lintian. ( wget http://www.stappers.nl/gst/pool/main/c/conglomerate/conglomerate_0.7.14-1_powerpc.deb ) lintian conglomerate_0.7.14-1_powerpc.deb So no extra flags. That is based on lintian manual page. -c, --check Run all checks over the specified packages. This is the default action. The idea is the use the default action to get _all_ checks. But I was looking for the hugh /usr/share so I tried lintian -C hus conglomerate_0.7.14-1_powerpc.deb Two snippets from the lintian manual page -C chk1,chk2,..., --check-part chk1,chk2,... Run only the specified checks. You can either specify the name of the check script or the abbreviation. For details, see the CHECKS section below. huge-usr-share (hus) Checks whether an architecture-dependent package does have a significantly big /usr/share. Big amounts of architecture inde- pendent data in architecture dependent packages waste space on the mirrors. But still no sign of the hugh /usr/share > Regarding this check, see /usr/share/lintian/checks/huge-usr-share, and > note that due to its new, experimental nature, it is only displayed when > you enable informative checks, by means of lintian -I. Hey a -I flag, lets try it: $ lintian -I conglomerate_0.7.14-1_powerpc.deb I: conglomerate: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 4448kB 86% Okay, I found what I was looking for .... What is a constructive way to solve our different expections of _all_ checks and "forceing hus check" versus the -I flag? (next is dutch, native language for me and probably also for Jeroen Wat is een opbouwende manier om ons verschil in verwachtingen bij _alle_ test en de "geforceerde hus test" tegenover de -I optie op te lossen?) > --Jeroen Cheers Geert Stappers
