Option to run package checks only or run meta.yaml checks only

[jakirkham]

In conda-forge as we have our own linter for meta.yaml, it would be nice to integrate conda-verify's meta.yaml checks into it. This would help make recipe problems of this nature prominent and in a form that user's of conda-forge are familiar with. Along these lines it would be nice also to have an option to just run checks on the final package, which would need to be performed on CIs.

[mandeep]

@jakirkham When you run conda-verify on a package tarball, you're seeing the meta.yaml checks being run on a meta.yaml in the directory as well?

[jakirkham]

It's possible I'm misunderstanding something.

IIUC conda-build automatically runs conda-verify, right? Does it do this only after build is complete or does it run checks before the build begins on the meta.yaml as well? If it does check before, is it possible to disable them somehow? Would like to get these checks into the linter service instead to make them more visible. Also would like to avoid running them in the CI builds as they can be covered via the linter service.

Independently there are some checks that show up for info/index.json at the end of the build, which appear to be metadata style checks as well. It would be good to know how to disable these specific checks. Expect we can effectively get these checks by using conda-verify in conjunction with the linter in conda-smithy. The other package checks for linking issues and the like are best kept in CI builds. So would want to make sure they stay enabled.

[github-actions]

Hi there, thank you for your contribution!

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed automatically if no further activity occurs.

If you would like this issue to remain open please:

1. Verify that you can still reproduce the issue at hand
2. Comment that the issue is still reproducible and include:
   - What OS and version you reproduced the issue on
   - What steps you followed to reproduce the issue

NOTE: If this issue was closed prematurely, please leave a comment.

Thanks!

[jakirkham]

Some form of this may be worth revisiting