2008/9/21 Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Raphael Geissert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 2008/9/14 Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> I already explained why I think this is a bad idea. I don't think > >> Actually, what I understood from what you said is that you were not sure >> how useful it would be. > > It doesn't seem like a good idea to me to use the same tag to mean > multiple things.
It will just mean that lintian may have found it via an experimental check, or a check that can not warantee the certainty of the problem/issue. > >>> anything's changed, has it? > >> The idea is to reuse the tag name to for example add experimental >> versions of current tags, making them less false negatives prone (but >> with the possibility of making them more prone to false positives). > > When would we not want to just add a new tag? It seems a lot simpler. In cases where we would have to copy and paste exactly the same tag information just to use a different certainty or make it an experimental tag. > >> Other than that, I really believe the @information->$extra conversion >> should happen at tag, not at the other sublevels as it is completely >> irrelevant. > > I don't understand what this means, and reviewing the bug log didn't help > me. Could you clarify what an "@information->$extra" conversion is? If you take a look at my proposed patch you will see that it also gets rid of this stuff: > my $extra = ''; > $extra = " @$information" if @$information; > $extra = '' if $extra eq ' '; There's no point in doing that in methods such as print_tag, get_tag_code, and lib/Tags/*.pm > > -- > Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > Cheers, -- Atomo64 - Raphael Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
