don't forget, the tag could also be marked as experimental, which is thought exactly to help out developing of the tags with high chances of fpos.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:48 AM Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@debian.org> wrote: > On Mon 2018-02-05 04:38:14 +0530, Chris Lamb wrote: > > tags 889592 + pending > > thanks > > > > "Fixed" in Git, pending upload: > > > > > https://anonscm.debian.org/git/lintian/lintian.git/commit/?id=293c897ef968e0f50ac4f48986034aeda57e179d > > > > Ah well, just too many false-positive cases.. I mean, we'd have to start > > ignoring ": " comments, as well as detecting the differences between, > say: > > > > override_dh_auto_test: > > echo "input" | ./testsuite.sh > > > > and > > > > override_dh_auto_test: > > echo "Not running" > > Hm, ripping it out entirely seems suboptimal, i'd love to be able to > find and fix a bunch of these. > > What if the tag didn't trigger if there was only one command in > override_dh_auto_test, and it started with either "dh_auto_test " or > with ": "? > > i think that would avoid most of the important false-positives, and the > tag could provide guidance for folks who were doing 'echo "Not running"' > to use ': Not running' instead. > > Seems a shame to lose a bunch of good catches if we can prune down the > false-positives. And even if this ends up missing some true positives, > it would be a net win to catch the packages that *do* fail to check > DEB_BUILD_PROFILES. > > --dkg >
