Re: [PATCH 5/5] gnu: Some cleanup based on lint checkers.

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Eric Bavier <ericbavier@gmail.com> skribis:

> 1. Warnings about patch names are generated in cases where a single
> patch is used in several packages, or in packages that inherit from
> another.

I think the checker should be amended to deal with that, I’m not sure
how.

> 2. Many descriptions begin with the package name in lowercase form,
> which triggers a warning about the description beginning with a
> lowercase letter.  In this patch I capitalised the package name if I
> could find a reference to the capital form on the package's home-page
> somewhere.  Many packages are quite insistent that the package always be
> referenced by the lowercase name, and I'm not sure how the description
> would be reworded, or whether it really needs to be.  We could add an
> exception to the description-starts-with-a-capital-letter rule for when
> the package name is the first word.

Yes, sounds like a good idea.

> 3. Some synopses begin with a numeral, triggering the capital-letter
> warning.

guile -c '(use-modules(guix)(gnu)(ice-9 regex))(fold-packages (lambda (p r) (if (and (package-synopsis p) (string-match "^[0-9]" (package-synopsis p))) (cons p r) r)) (list))'

returns the empty list.  Which one was it?

> 4. Handling the pkg-config warnings should really have the builds
> tested.

Yes.

> 5. I didn't really want to begin looking at the synopses and
> descriptions in xorg.scm...

Heheh.

> Comments welcome.  Nitpicks especially, since much of this is already
> quite nitpicky. ;)

I was wondering who was going to take care of that now that we have all
these fancy checkers, so thank you!  :-)

I skimmed through it and I think you can commit it.  If ‘make
sync-description’ is unhappy, we should see what’s going on, and
possibly amend the upstream description if needed.

(BTW, ‘build-aux/sync-descriptions’ should probably be turned into a
checker.  Anyone?)

Ludo’.