[Piuparts-devel] coordination between lintian/piuparts/adequate

[Louis-Philippe Véronneau]

On 2024-10-27 7 h 16 p.m., Richard Lewis wrote:
> "Serafeim (Serafi) Zanikolas" <sez at debian.org> writes:
> 
>> hi lintian and piuparts folks! relatively new maintainer of adequate(1) here.
> 
> No-one replied so i thought i'd have a go, but i have no role in any of
> this, just a user who has also tried to understand these tools
> 
>> it seems to me that it'd be useful to write down some criteria to use as
>> guidance on how to decide where new checks should be implemented, to avoid
>> duplication.
>>
>> source-package checks clearly belong in lintian. binary-package checks are
>> trickier:
>> - lintian is great to check requirements around mechanics (e.g. that a certain
>>    helper is used appropriately, rather than using ad-hoc code)
> 
> i'd think:
> 
>    lintian is static analysis, it doesnt install the deb, just looks at
>     its contents vs policy
> 
>    piuparts is mostly about upgrades and removals -- and interactions
>    with other debs
> 
>    this leaves adequate as "things lintian cant do as it would need the
>    deb to be installed" but which dont relate to upgrades/removals
>    
>    (perhaps adequate and the "i" bit of piuparts could be merged, but
>    maybe the difference is that adequate only looks at once package? and
>    not sure anyone maintains piuparts any more?)

Hi,

Thanks for reaching out.

I can't really speak for piuparts, but I agree with what Serafeim wrote 
for the lintian part.

One of the strengths of lintian and piuparts is a lot of people run them 
each time they build a package. Adequate needing the package to be 
installed makes it harder to integrate in that workflow.

Maybe if it was a feature in sbuild it would help?

-- 
   ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
   ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
   ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   pollo at debian.org / veronneau.org
   ⠈⠳⣄