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) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
