On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:42:20 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > You imply that the reviewer will just cut'n'paste the list w/o really > checking the items, or not? Can you tell that all pasted checkpoints have been checked actually? No. Not even where you want to require the reviewer to fill in something meaningful. Example: * [...] * license: GPL * rpmlint is silent * BR are complete * builds fine for i386 * haven't tried to build for x86_64 * debuginfo package not empty * file ownership/permissions look good * scriptlets look good * installs fine * seems to start fine * removes fine * [...] Ooops. It's a plain copy from the previous approval, where the package was GPL'ed, too, and the rest identical. For a lot of the checks the result is the same for all packages. The wording is ambiguous and not detailed enough. And there is still too much noise. Too much stuff that MUST be satisfied for an approval anyway. Do you have an idea how many reviews like that I've done, gpg signed even? Nobody has any interest in that noise. Packagers don't want to read all that either, especially not if they are familiar with the guidelines and have created their package painstakingly. They wait to be told what they need to fix to get approval. Can you tell what other relevant things have been checked? No, unless another detailed list is included with the review. If it's not included, the visual appearance of the review would be reduced to the well-known check-list. If you wanted to verify and judge about filled-in values, the protocol would need to be *much* more verbose and include the diagnostic output from tools. * file ownership/permissions look good $ rpmls gqview -rwxr-xrwx /usr/bin/gqview -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/applications/gnome-gqview.desktop drwxr-xrwx /usr/share/doc/gqview-2.0.4 -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/gqview-2.0.4/COPYING -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/gqview-2.0.4/ChangeLog -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/gqview-2.0.4/README -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/gqview-2.0.4/TODO drwxr-xrwx /usr/share/doc/gqview-2.0.4/html -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/gqview-2.0.4/html/10_1_general.html Hey, the stuff is world-writable, stupid! ;) > If you don't then what's all the worry about? I want to retain the freedom to keep the s/n ratio high by omitting uninteresting things and being verbose when problems are found or when hints make sense. I don't want to be forced into a specific format for approvals of [trivial] packages. If the relationship between packager and reviewer is fine, it is even possible to do a first brief review of the most important items and continue in CVS. Similarly, I want to avoid pedantry. Like 99% of the spec file appear to be American English, but in Revision 6 the packager added a word with British English spelling. -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
