Re: [PATCH] insane bbclass: turn fatal errors back into fatal errors

[Phil Blundell <pb@pbcl.net>]

On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 17:49 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> It's a white list, so:
> 
> # 0 - non dev contains .so
> # 5 - .la contains installed=yes or reference to the workdir
> # 7 - the desktop file is not valid
> # 8 - .la contains reference to the workdir
> # 9 - LDFLAGS ignored
> 
> Are warnings and
> 
> # 1 - package contains a dangerous RPATH
> # 2 - package depends on debug package
> # 3 - non dbg contains .so
> # 4 - wrong architecture
> # 6 - .pc contains reference to /usr/include or workdir
> # 10 - Build paths in binaries
> # 11 - package depends on devel package
> 
> Are fatal errors. The splits seems arbitrary to me, but it that's how it was last year before RP disabled all fatal errors.

I guess the split does make some sense as it is, although I can't see
any reason for #8 not to be in the fatal set.  #5 also seems like it
would belong there except that, as far as I can tell, that test doesn't
actually exist in the code so it's a bit academic how the results are
treated.

#7 is, in the scheme of things, a relatively minor infringement (and
usually an upstream bug anyway) so probably oughtn't to make a package
unshippable.  #9 is potentially a nuisance but in most cases doesn't
cause any actual problems, so again I think it's fair for this to be a
warning. 

Incidentally, it seems that the description for #6 is a bit wrong: it
doesn't actually do any checking for /usr/include.  And #3 should
obviously be talking about .debug not .so.

p.