Hello Ian, Ian Jackson [2012-06-28 1:01 +0100]: > Thanks for working on this. Looking at it I'm not entirely clear that > the patch is right. I'm quite tired right now and could be wrong but > it seems to me that we should be using the tree from the tree argument > to read_control. This should probably become a new constructor > argument to Test (and correspondingly doesn't need to be an argument > to run_tests or indeed to Test.run).
Where "This" == the list of binaries that are being produced by this source (as a new ctor argument)? > And of course you should use tree.read() not tree.path[1]. Ah, thanks! Cf. That was not obvious to me. > (And, as a matter of style, Python `portability' stuff notwithstanding > I think the code is clearer if you avoid os.path.join and just say `/' > when you mean it.) It's an old habit of mine, but I'm happy to use / directly. > Is the parser in packages_from_source really correct ? I don't think > it's a rule that the Package line must come before the others. Indeed, just a convention. > Perhaps it would be better to generalise the first half of > read_control until it can be reused (as a non-class function called > something like read_stanzas, I guess). Will do that. Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
