Bug#339829: potential patch improvements

[Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sourceforge.net>]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:19:03AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 09:33 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> 
> > > > Packages for which this is a false-positive (such as slash, gnudip,
> > > > and bake)
> > > 
> > > These can be eliminated by checking for a url in the description too.
> >
> > It reduces some true positives also: abcmidi, achims-guestbook,
> > airsnort, alsa-base, anjuta, ant, apache, apg, ardour-doc, aspell-bg,
> > atlc, audacity, etc.
> 
> airsnort anjuta apg aspell-bg ant apache atlc audacity: are detected by
> my last-line-has-url-isn't-homepage test.
> 
> abcmidi achims-guestbook alsa-base: Perhaps I can extend my test to take
> into account the last paragraph (merged into one line) instead of the
> last line.
> 
> ardour-doc: I should add the phrase "further information" to your test.
> added.
Erm, yes, I think I got confused with the inclusions and exclusions..

> > > How about the attached combination check - does my check and also does
> > > yours, with the changes that it checks a couple of other words, and
> > > checks for a url in the description too.
> > 
> > > $description =~ m/(homepage|webpage|website)/is
> > Good, please also add "|URL|upstream"
> 
> Added, along with some other phrases I found.
What about just 'site' and/or official?  (bandwidthd)

> > (see asterisk-sounds-extra).
> 
> That would have been caught by my last-line-has-url-isn't-homepage test.
> 
> > > && $description =~ m/[a-z]+:\/\// 
> > This is to reduce false positives, right?  I don't like it.  If this
> > were an ' || ' condition, it would be great.
> 
> If it were an || then any package with a URL in the description would
> trigger the test, which is probably a bad idea, because not all URLs
> will be homepages.
My intent was that such packages would use an override; I don't know
if the numbers are right for this to be feasible.  Note that

  apt-cache dumpavail |sed -nre '/^Description:/,/^ \.$/{ /:\/\// { p } };'

gives 500 packages which would be missed..

I'll cede to to the existence of your patch, here, since tons of
packages are already affected...

> Of course, all this would be simpler if there was a Homepage field.
Yes, kind of.  Then we would have to encourage people to use it,
instead of the pseudo-field.  So I guess this test can be used for
that, in the future.  :)

-- 
Clear skies,
Justin