On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 08:17 +1200, Michael J. Knox wrote: > Does the FE package guidelines out weigh rpmlint output or does rpmlint > out weigh the FE guidelines? > > If rpmlint is of higher priority, then the chnagelog needs fixing, if > the FE packaging is higher, then its fine as is... I happened to reply to a related message in private mail a few minutes ago, so I'll take the chance to copy/paste relevant bits of that reply. By the way, shouldn't packaging issues be discussed on the fedora-packaging list instead of here? --- Changes to the guidelines go through the packaging committee, and I'll continue to try to make rpmlint behave as well as possible within their scope as well as sensibly outside of it when there are no explicit rules. I think warning from rpmlint, not an error is the right thing to do at the moment. FWIW, my opinion is that including EVR information in changelog entries should be at least a SHOULD (and I wouldn't mind a MUST). FWIW #2, and FYI in case you're interested, there's also an upstream RFE about recognizing and "allowing" different ways of specifying the EVR in changelog entries: http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/23 I'm not a big fan of that suggestion, but if the alternative is that people are inclined to omit the EVR altogether, then I'm all for it.
