Re: GSoC status: classification, output format and more
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:42:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Yes, standardization would be excellent here, as well as adding more
> keywords to the translator that turns them into nice descriptions for the
> web and for -i output.
>
> The one thing this doesn't give us is distinguishing between the "sources"
> of the various tags that don't have meaningful Ref values. There are a
> few different cases even if the tag isn't based on some external source.
> "The resulting package would be broken" vs. "request of relevant
> maintainer" vs. "generally accepted best practice" comes to mind. But we
> could handle this through keywords in Ref.
I'm not sure what exactly do you mean with "The resulting package would
be broken"... that looks like Severity to me, not a Source.
You are right though, some detail is lost, but wouldn't it be a bit
confusing to have both Source and Ref? How would you handle that? Making
Source a mandatory field for all tags, even if they already have a Ref?
The relevant distinction is probably between policy and non-policy tags,
so I'm not sure adding another field is worth it. I'd rather keep only
one and use keywords, as suggested, for non-external sources. (Source
may be more "semantically" correct than Ref if we include these
keywords.)
> Given the high accuracy, it might be nice to put a summary at the end of
> this output listing the tags where the classifications don't match and the
> new and old classifications. I'm betting most of them are just bugs in
> the current Lintian.
Hmm, I'm not so sure about that ;)
Most of those are probably tags that I didn't classify properly using
Severity and Certainty. Anyway, the list was already available, just
forgot the link:
http://ettin.org/tmp/lintian/transtats-v.out (last 3 paragraphs)
Reply to: