[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: guix lint should support overrides
From: |
Vagrant Cascadian |
Subject: |
Re: guix lint should support overrides |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Aug 2022 14:06:57 -0700 |
On 2022-08-24, zimoun wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 15:22, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> But, because there is no way to silence a particular inappropriate
>> suggestion from guix lint, it becomes noise, and each person evaluating
>> the results of the package in the future then needs to take time to
>> figure out if guix lint is wrong, or something should be changed.
>
> Do you have some packages as example? In order to be concrete about the
> false-positive and how to programatically fix them.
Off the top of my head, no, though it came up in the course of a
convesation on #guix recently, and it reminded me of advice I've gotten
in the past to just ignore a particular check on a particular package.
> For instance, do you mean exclude on specific checker for one specific
> package?
Yes, this! :)
Maybe something like:
(define-public thispackages
(package
(name "thispackages"
...
(lint-overides
(list
;; The upstream name is actually "This Packages", not a typo.
"typo in description: 'This Packages' should be 'This Package'"))
And then guix lint would hide or ignore things that would otherwise emit
the strings listed in lint-overrides ... or something like that. Maybe
exact match, maybe get into a little pattern matching, not
sure. Implementation is not my strong point here. :)
You might also want to add a guix lint check for unused overrides
(e.g. something that no longer triggers the issue, either fixed upstream
in guix lint itself, or some other way).
> Or teach one specific checker for one specific package in
> order to avoid an error specific to this package running this specific
> checker?
No. Maybe in some cases this might make sense, but was not what I was
suggesting.
>> The downside is this becomes one more thing to maintain... in exchange
>> for making the output having a higher degree of relevency in "guix lint"
>> output, so you can be more confident that someone hasn't already looked
>> at a given issue and decided it was best to just ignore it (not that
>> that will not ever happen anymore, but still).
>
> The cost for a poor maintenance is low compared to the benefit, IMHO.
>
> For instance, it is boring to run massive lint:
>
> 1. because “guix lint” does not support the option --manifest
> 2. because “guix lint” reports some false-positive messages
Yeah, my suggestion was mostly about trying to address aspects of point
2.
live well,
vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature