Re: Bits from the Lintian maintainers
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:54:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> * Provide a way to more clearly indicate Lintian's certainty, the severity
> of the problem, and the source of the rule that Lintian is checking,
> rather than always collapsing that information into a simple three-level
> error/warning/info hierarchy. This would allow users to, for example,
> see only the tags where Lintian is certain there is a problem, or easily
> ignore tags for aesthetic issues that aren't violations of technical
> requirements. This sort of additional granularity is a necessary
> prerequisite for running Lintian on all uploaded packages and rejecting
> on serious Lintian errors, something that's been oft-proposed.
I'm thinking of working on it as suggested by Marc Brockschmidt's
proposal[1] for Google's Summer of Code.
The goals are clear and I don't think there is a lot of room for
creativity, but I still would like to know your thoughts about how it
should be implemented.
Basically, my initial idea is to make it possible to use a
comma-separated list of keywords in Type:, instead of using «error»,
«warning» or «info» only. (Keywords may include a namespace as in
«severity::error» or «certainty::wild-guess», depending on how the final
classification looks like.)
This way it would be easy to include more information later if needed
(such as «origin::policy», etc.). But does it make sense, or you think
this breaks the purpose of Type: and new headers must be created for
each category?
Thanks.
1. http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2008/lintian
Reply to: