[Dehs-devel] Bug#489050: qa.debian.org: PTS says error processing watch file, DEHS says no error
ben+debian at benfinney.id.au
Thu Jul 3 23:41:41 UTC 2008
On 03-Jul-2008, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> On 03/07/2008, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog at debian.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Ben Finney wrote:
> > > Why is the PTS page claiming there is an error processing the
> > > watch file, and linking to a page that shows there was no such
> > > error?
> The linked page says it could not check upstream.
Which is still not an *error*. If upstream is not checkable, it's not
an error if it's not checked.
> Because it is "empty" (it does have some comment lines, but nothing
> for uscan/DEHS). So DEHS thinks it has to check the watch file, but
> since it is empty uscan doesn't complain and DEHS just reports that
> it could not check it.
Surely, if 'uscan' does not complain when using the watch file, that
should satisfy DEHS.
> DEHS is not intended to actually examine the watch files
It should use 'uscan' for this, instead of inspecting the file itself.
> so I will add a lintian check for empty watch files (hoping Russ
> approves it)
This would conflict with what lintian already does in the case of a
*missing* watch file: it recommends that a watch file be created, and
if upstream cannot be scanned, explain this in comments (making it
"empty", if I understand you correctly).
Instead of DEHS checking for empty watch files, it should rely on
'uscan' which already knows how to interpret them.
> and prevent DEHS from listing packages with no errors from uscan in
> the file being grabbed by the PTS.
That would be good also. Thanks.
\ “Holy knit one purl two, Batman!” —Robin |
Ben Finney <ben at benfinney.id.au>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/dehs-devel/attachments/20080704/68c071da/attachment.pgp
More information about the Dehs-devel