Re: guix lint should support overrides

[Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1481 bytes --]


On 24-08-2022 10:08, zimoun wrote:
> Hi Vagrant,
>
> 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.
>
> For instance, do you mean exclude on specific checker for one specific
> package?  Or teach one specific checker for one specific package in
> order to avoid an error specific to this package running this specific
> checker?

Myself (not Vagrant) I was thinking of the gnu-description linter.

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))).

Greetings,
Maxime.


[-- Attachment #1.1.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2183 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 929 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]