Re: [lintian] 01/01: Rename application-in-library-section and library-package-name-for-application (+ should-not)

[Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>]

Hi,

Bastien ROUCARIÈS wrote:
> >     Rename application-in-library-section and library-package-name-for-application (+ should-not)
> >     
> >     application-in-library-section       => application-should-not-be-in-library-section
> >     library-package-name-for-application => application-should-not-have-library-package-name
> 
> I prefer the olds name.

Guillem does so, too. I misunderstood him, when he asked to rename
some of the tags introduced by me.

> We should not encode policy in tag name.

Why?

> Care to revert ?

Reverted for now as there were at least two voiced against the new
names and no renaming causes less collateral damage than any renaming.

I though discussed that topic with Niels today during lunch. Problem
seems that there so far is no real rule or guidelines how Lintian tags
should be named.

So I wonder if anyone on this list already has an idea of what makes
up a good lintian tag name.

I see at least two schemes in use:

* Naming what is broken (especially without the fact that it is
  broken)
* Naming what should be (in form of a sentence).

After the discussion with Guillem I felt that e.g. with
library-package-name-for-application is ambiguous and unclear about
what the tag name describes is an issue or the goal. That's why I
renamed the tags to be no more ambiguous.

I also like with the renamed tag names that the two similar tags now
also have similar names.

One thing I don't like with the new names is that they're quite long.

So I don't mind the revert, but I'd prefer to have a clear (internal)
policy about how tags should be named.

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE