Hi Vagrant, On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 at 15:22, Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@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? > 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 Cheers, simon
