From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH] WIP: Output linters Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:32:48 +0200 Message-ID: <877fcpn7zj.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160713043433.13292-1-ericbavier@openmailbox.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44674) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bNHTO-000270-CN for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 06:33:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bNHTM-0002Bq-Ai for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2016 06:32:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160713043433.13292-1-ericbavier@openmailbox.org> (ericbavier@openmailbox.org's message of "Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:34:32 -0500") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: ericbavier@openmailbox.org Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Eric Bavier Hi! ericbavier@openmailbox.org skribis: > The current patch just adds a simple check for the presence of build dire= ctory > strings in the output, which may affect build reproducibility across mach= ines. > 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 throug= h 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 includ= ing. So far such checks were done as extra build phases: =E2=80=98validate-runpa= th=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98validate-documentation-location=E2=80=99. The advantage is th= at 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=E2=80=99.