Bug#498883: Please add support for overridable tags
2008/9/21 Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>:
> "Raphael Geissert" <atomo64@gmail.com> writes:
>> 2008/9/14 Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>:
>
>>> I already explained why I think this is a bad idea. I don't think
>
>> Actually, what I understood from what you said is that you were not sure
>> how useful it would be.
>
> It doesn't seem like a good idea to me to use the same tag to mean
> multiple things.
It will just mean that lintian may have found it via an experimental
check, or a check that can not warantee the certainty of the
problem/issue.
>
>>> anything's changed, has it?
>
>> The idea is to reuse the tag name to for example add experimental
>> versions of current tags, making them less false negatives prone (but
>> with the possibility of making them more prone to false positives).
>
> When would we not want to just add a new tag? It seems a lot simpler.
In cases where we would have to copy and paste exactly the same tag
information just to use a different certainty or make it an
experimental tag.
>
>> Other than that, I really believe the @information->$extra conversion
>> should happen at tag, not at the other sublevels as it is completely
>> irrelevant.
>
> I don't understand what this means, and reviewing the bug log didn't help
> me. Could you clarify what an "@information->$extra" conversion is?
If you take a look at my proposed patch you will see that it also gets
rid of this stuff:
> my $extra = '';
> $extra = " @$information" if @$information;
> $extra = '' if $extra eq ' ';
There's no point in doing that in methods such as print_tag,
get_tag_code, and lib/Tags/*.pm
>
> --
> Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
>
Cheers,
--
Atomo64 - Raphael
Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Reply to: