[2019-06-18 22:30] "Chris Lamb" <la...@debian.org> > > part text/plain 414 > Chris Lamb wrote: > > > It seems reasonable that this option could be allowed so I am > > therefore retitling (etc.) this bug to match. > > On the other hand, I would be curious to know why you wish to suppress > *so* many tags. It sounds like there is a deeper, more fundamental, > issue at play here.
Some of tags have too much false-positive rate, and some of them are not worth spending time. Here is incomplete list: - hardening-no-fortify-functions: terrible false-positive rate. Most packages I maintain/QA trigger this tag despite blhc(1) verifying that all recommended C/CPP/LD-FLAGS are included. Your mileage may vary, but for me, blhc(1) superseded this tag. - *systemd*: my personaly policy is to ship upstream service file verbatim (okay, ocassional s/bin/sbin), if any. These tags are pure noise. - *upstream-metadata*: I am not convinced of usefulness of this proposal. Most of fields in upstream metadata file can be inferred from d/control, d/changelog (dep5) and d/watch, but I would not volonteer scripting this. - missing-debian/watch: `gbp import-orig --uscan' is essential to my workflow, so I need no reminder. But for finished software, this tag is noise. Probably, there are more. -- Note, that I send and fetch email in batch, once in a few days.
