Ville Skyttä wrote: > 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.
Perhaps the "defacto" policy should be that if two or more guidelines/tools/people/etc disagree that the current FE packaging guidelines be considered correct. Should the other guidelines/tools/people/etc feel strongly enough to do so, they should be put forward for consideration.
Having this could easily avoid situations like this and allow for a more fluid growth and change in the packing guidelines rather than a heavy handed approach that seems to have been used.
Just my 20cents (cuz the NZ dollar is pretty week ;P )
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.
I have always used EVR and will continue to do so until is not allowed (which I doubt would happen). It should be a SHOULD and not a MUST unless there is an overwhelming technical and logical reason to be so.
Thanks Michael
