On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 07:05:17PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > On 2011-05-17 18:16, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 07:50:45PM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote: > >> Functional proof-of-concept patch; simply apply and profit! The code is > >> stolen from dpkg-source and cooked down a bit (... a lot). > >> > >> The patch here disables dpkg-source unpacking all together (saves you > >> from peeling out dpkg-dev from a system). > > > > That's a bit further than what Raphaël said this API was OK for - not > > just "a fallback when dpkg-source is not there". Have you > > double-checked that with him? > > It was not my intention to apply this patch as is. The argument for > disabling the dpkg-source usage was to ease your job as a tester (so you > did not have to uninstall dpkg-dev from your machines).
Ah, OK. FWIW I was just temporarily moving /usr/bin/dpkg-source aside in my earlier tests rather than trying to uninstall the package. > >> The patch does not account for updating the Lintian Depends; I suspect > >> that dpkg-dev should be replaced with bzip2, xz-utils and > >> libdpkg-perl. The former two can be most likely be left out if you > >> know there are no bz2 / xz / lmza sources. > > > > Or perhaps we can just rely on libdpkg-perl's Recommends of bzip2 and > > xz-utils? > > Possibly, I hope some of the other Lintian maintainers have a comment on > this. Should we just go with Depends: dpkg-dev | libdpkg-perl or do we > want ... > > Recommends: dpkg-dev > Depends/Recommends: bzip2, xz-utils Neither of those would help my use case, because it would have the effect of dragging dpkg-dev into our CD images anyway (we install Recommends by default just as Debian does, and our tools prefer the first element in a dependency disjunction if it exists). How about: Depends: libdpkg-perl, bzip2, xz-utils Suggests: dpkg-dev or: Depends: libdpkg-perl [Recommends: bzip2, xz-utils] Suggests: dpkg-dev (Recommends in brackets because libdpkg-perl already recommends those, so I'm not sure if there's much point in lintian repeating this.) > > This drops the signature check currently performed by dpkg-source, so it > > changes Lintian's behaviour to (a) accept .dsc files with bad signatures > > and (b) stop issuing a warning for unsigned .dsc files. This seems > > undesirable. > > > > Aside from that, the patch does seem to work as advertised. Thanks! > > Actually as far as I can tell, we do not get any warnings on unsigned > source packages (possibly due to the -q option), but sure, checking > signatures should not be an issue either. Oh, you're right, -q would suppress the warning for unsigned files. I think my point (a) is still true though. Thanks, -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@ubuntu.com] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
