On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Chris Lamb <la...@debian.org> wrote:
> … in particular:
> At this time, please do <i>not</i> attempt to "fix" the problem. It
> is not clear what the solution is (if any at all). Nor is it clear
> that this is something that will be supported.
Note that that text was *removed* from the tag description in that commit (!!).
> So, alas, changes may even be incorrect (!). I am unsure, hence
> tagging as moreinfo for the time being.
> (As an aside, how come you show classification checks? Surely they
> are far too noisy/useless..? I also wonder if this should be an
> X "experimental" tag instead as that would have been less strange.)
I thought some of the classification tags were useful. Do you have a
list of all the classification checks to help me reconsider? I don't
show experimental tags.
This particular tag is problematic because it encourages people who
see the tag to change the packaging so that the tag isn't emitted. ( I
have done that in several packages but will undo it as I touch the
packages again and notice.)