"Dallas L. Engelken" writes: > > Really? I can reproduce this by putting in the single line: > > > > meta SARE_OBFU_OBLIGATION 0 > > 'meta RULE 0' does not lint, whereas 'meta RULE ()' does. so maybe > that's the quickest fix. are these zero'd metas just left in the > ruleset for backwards compatibility? > > 'meta RULE ()' would still be compiled, use memory (in daemon mode), and > end up running an empty test. isnt this a waste of resources?
That may be unavoidable. Either way though, I do see the problem -- could someone open a bug at the BZ so we can decide what the "correct" way to do this should be and possibly add support for it to the engine? --j.
