On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 09:13:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > The plus is that the basic format uses the same terms that people are > already familiar with, even though we also have support for tuning the > output for things like ftp-master. The drawback is that we're not pushing > people towards the new, granular way of thinking about tag severity. But > I'm not sure that's necessary.
Oh, I thought the idea was to change E/W/I too. I'm OK with it, but I still think alternative outputs could be interesting. And while I agree there is no easy way to represent the new information on the command line interface, I'm sure we can find more subtle ways to display it on lintian.d.o. Btw, I didn't say much about Source:, but that's because I was thinking of reusing Ref: which already has the relevant information. Though some standardization wouldn't hurt: using the document ID as defined by doc-base instead of its title (and optional debian- prefixes?), removing the word "section", and making it a comma separated list. So instead of: Ref: policy 3.9.1 Ref: menu manual 3.7 Ref: Perl policy 4.4.2 Ref: Debian doc-base Manual sections 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.2 Ref: debconf-devel(7) the standardized entries would be: Ref: policy 3.9.1 Ref: menu 3.7 Ref: perl-policy 4.4.2 Ref: doc-base 2.3.2.1, doc-base 2.3.2.2 Ref: debconf-devel(7) > The only thing that I might change there is to make N/W an I instead of W. > Otherwise, that looks great to me. Makes sense, I have changed it already. I also updated the script to get some numbers[1], and with all the tags that have been classified so far (~62%), the "accuracy" of this mapping is ~95%. 1. http://ettin.org/tmp/lintian/transtats.out -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
