On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:54:23PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > * Provide a way to more clearly indicate Lintian's certainty, the severity > of the problem, and the source of the rule that Lintian is checking, > rather than always collapsing that information into a simple three-level > error/warning/info hierarchy. This would allow users to, for example, > see only the tags where Lintian is certain there is a problem, or easily > ignore tags for aesthetic issues that aren't violations of technical > requirements. This sort of additional granularity is a necessary > prerequisite for running Lintian on all uploaded packages and rejecting > on serious Lintian errors, something that's been oft-proposed.
I'm thinking of working on it as suggested by Marc Brockschmidt's proposal[1] for Google's Summer of Code. The goals are clear and I don't think there is a lot of room for creativity, but I still would like to know your thoughts about how it should be implemented. Basically, my initial idea is to make it possible to use a comma-separated list of keywords in Type:, instead of using «error», «warning» or «info» only. (Keywords may include a namespace as in «severity::error» or «certainty::wild-guess», depending on how the final classification looks like.) This way it would be easy to include more information later if needed (such as «origin::policy», etc.). But does it make sense, or you think this breaks the purpose of Type: and new headers must be created for each category? Thanks. 1. http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2008/lintian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
