Re: Review of new/changed lintian tag descriptions
On 2015-05-04 21:39, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Justin B Rye wrote:
>> Sorry, no patch yet - I've found the git repository, but I ran out of
>> time before I could work out how to check things out of it.
>
> I think I've got the hang of it. "git diff" patch attached (including
> a general sweep for unhyphenated uses of "non").
>
Excellent! Many thanks - I have applied it as-is. :)
* @Simon, we got a clarifying question about the tag description of
"dbus-policy-without-send-destination".
Lets start with dbus-policy-without-send-destination
>> [...]
>> + .
>> + This check ignores rules of the form
>> + .
>> + <policy user="root">
>> + <allow ... />
>> + </policy>
>> + .
>> + which are commonly used for the "agent" pattern seen in services like
>> + BlueZ and NetworkManager: a root-privileged daemon calls out to
>> + one or more per-user user interface agent processes with no specific
>> + name, so <tt>send_destination</tt> is not easily applicable.
>> + However, such rules should still be made as specific as possible to
>> + avoid undesired side-effects.
>> Ref: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18961,http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/2008-February/009401.html
>> -Experimental: yes
>
> (Do they really have "no specific name", or is it just that they have
> no name that can be predicted and applied in this sort of rule? Maybe
> s/specific/specifiable/?)
As I understand it (and Simon, please do correct me where I am wrong),
the rule causes messages to be sent out to "every service" (i.e.
"regardless of the name") rather than a selected set of named services.
Another item from Justin previous mail (unrelated to the above):
>> +
>> +Tag: multiline-architecture-field
>> +Severity: important
>> +Certainty: certain
>> +Ref: policy 5.6.8
>> +Info: The values of the Architecture field in debian/control must not
>> + be separated by anything else than spaces, i.e. must be single line
>> + and is not allowed to span multiple lines.
>
> (I wouldn't use "else" there myself, but plenty of other people seem
> happy with it.)
>
> You go from plural values to singular agreement on "is"; and "single
> line" needs either an article (if it's nominal) or a hyphen (if it's a
> compound modifier).
>
> Info: The values of the Architecture field in debian/control must not
> be separated by anything else than spaces; that is, they must form a
> single line and are not allowed to span multiple lines.
>
> (Also slightly repetitive, but at least it's clear.)
Would "... anything but spaces; that is, ..." sound better to you?
Personally I am not much for the current "else than"-construct either.
Thanks,
~Niels
Reply to: