Hi, Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> skribis:
> IIRC, there was some package where I proposed to modify the > description a little to be more informative and fit better in Guix, > but then the gnu-description proposed to use the upstream > description. Consequently, it was decided to use the original, IMO > worse, description. > > Unfortunately I cannot find the relevant e-mails anymore. > > This was a true positive, not a false positive, but I think it would > have been useful to silence the linter there anyway. > > At least for these kind of cases, I would go for a package property > (properties '((silence-linters gnu-description))). Yes, properties are the way to go IMO. Note that there’s already one or two checker-specific properties, such as ‘lint-hidden-cve’. We could add more of that if needed. A higher-level ‘lint-silenced-checkers’ property like you propose (I think that’s a better name) would also be welcome. It’s incidentally a good programming task to get started; who’s in? :-) Ludo’.
