From: D. M. <dm...@ne...> - 2011-04-27 02:14:39
|
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:52:54 -0400, Daniel Macks wrote: On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:17:40 +0200, Max Horn wrote: > > Am 18.04.2011 um 17:49 schrieb Daniel Macks: > > There are some cases were the validator incorrectly complains about > > perfectly fine packages. Currently, in such cases, the package > > maintainer then is forced to either make weird unnatural hacks to > > fool the validator (YUCK), or has to live without being able to use > > -m. > > > A concrete example are the geant4.8 and geant4.9 packages, for > which > the validator complains about them hardcoding /sw. In > reality, > though, the *upstream* authors hardcoded /sw, and the > .info file > tries to fix this by replacing /sw with %p. Can you > convert it to a PatchFile? Val is smart enough to know that removing > hardcoded /sw is a Good Thing, so "removed" lines *are* allowed to > have it. Val could have a similar intelligence in PatchScript, where > we decide on some blessed incantation for this "replacing /sw with > prefix" useful action. For example, "hardcoded /sw is allowed in > PatchScript iff it's in this exact string: ,/sw,%p," because I can't > think of any way that string could be used in other ways. And while implementing this, I notice it already *is* allowed. Call it a forward-looking feature or a bug in the implemenation (it's a little of both), but fact is val does allow you to use PatchScript to remove hardcoded /sw in upstream sources. Without fancy regexp to hide the literal "/sw" string. dan -- Daniel Macks dm...@ne... |