On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 17:49 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > It's a white list, so: > > # 0 - non dev contains .so > # 5 - .la contains installed=yes or reference to the workdir > # 7 - the desktop file is not valid > # 8 - .la contains reference to the workdir > # 9 - LDFLAGS ignored > > Are warnings and > > # 1 - package contains a dangerous RPATH > # 2 - package depends on debug package > # 3 - non dbg contains .so > # 4 - wrong architecture > # 6 - .pc contains reference to /usr/include or workdir > # 10 - Build paths in binaries > # 11 - package depends on devel package > > Are fatal errors. The splits seems arbitrary to me, but it that's how it was > last year before RP disabled all fatal errors.
I guess the split does make some sense as it is, although I can't see any reason for #8 not to be in the fatal set. #5 also seems like it would belong there except that, as far as I can tell, that test doesn't actually exist in the code so it's a bit academic how the results are treated. #7 is, in the scheme of things, a relatively minor infringement (and usually an upstream bug anyway) so probably oughtn't to make a package unshippable. #9 is potentially a nuisance but in most cases doesn't cause any actual problems, so again I think it's fair for this to be a warning. Incidentally, it seems that the description for #6 is a bit wrong: it doesn't actually do any checking for /usr/include. And #3 should obviously be talking about .debug not .so. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
