From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: ericbavier@openmailbox.org
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Eric Bavier <bavier@member.fsf.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] WIP: Output linters
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:32:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877fcpn7zj.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160713043433.13292-1-ericbavier@openmailbox.org> (ericbavier@openmailbox.org's message of "Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:34:32 -0500")
Hi!
ericbavier@openmailbox.org skribis:
> The current patch just adds a simple check for the presence of build directory
> strings in the output, which may affect build reproducibility across machines.
> Other checks that might be useful might include checks:
>
> * for "recent" timestamps, which might indicate use of __DATE__ or `date`,
>
> * for presence of '.DIR' or other empty directories,
>
> * for proper placement of documentation,
>
> * for documentation that might best be moved to a "doc" output, or
>
> * for self-contained pkg-config files, etc.
All good ideas! This reminds me that Taylan had posted a .pc file
parser to check for dependencies that should be propagated; this could
be used as one of the checks.
> Any such checks obviously rely on the package outputs being in the store. On
> the one hand both local builds and substitutes are expensive. But on the
> other hand we'd like 'guix lint' to be run before someone submits a patch or
> pushes their commits. Being a good submitter, they hopefully went through the
> trouble to test that the package builds, so the package outputs are mostly
> likely in the store anyhow, and 'guix lint' wouldn't have any extra work to
> do.
>
> I'd like to hear from others whether they think this WIP has enough merit to
> include in 'guix lint', and if so what other checks might be worth including.
So far such checks were done as extra build phases: ‘validate-runpath’
and ‘validate-documentation-location’. The advantage is that they
cannot be skipped unwillingly; the build succeeds if and only if all the
checks passed. The downside is that adding or modifying such a phase
leads to a full rebuild. Something that is both an advantage and a
downside is that you get to test the rules on all the packages, so you
can (have to :-)) make sure they work well.
I think I prefer keeping such checks as build phases, although perhaps
there are cases where this is inconvenient.
WDYT?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-13 10:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-13 4:34 [PATCH] WIP: Output linters ericbavier
2016-07-13 4:34 ` [PATCH] gnu: lint: Check package outputs ericbavier
2016-07-13 10:32 ` Ludovic Courtès [this message]
2016-07-14 18:27 ` [PATCH] WIP: Output linters Eric Bavier
2016-07-15 14:19 ` Ludovic Courtès
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=877fcpn7zj.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=ludo@gnu.org \
--cc=bavier@member.fsf.org \
--cc=ericbavier@openmailbox.org \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).