Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 02:22:16PM -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
If you look closely, rpmlint output is separated into warnings (W:) and
errors (E:). Just like a C compiler.
If I remember well Ville said that the difference between W and E was
quite arbitrary.
Errors MUST be fixed to pass review. (Or to pass the upcoming
rpmlint-after-build test)
Some errors have to be ignored (from the top of my head, errors about
setuid binaries, for example).
Warnings can be ignored IF (BIG IF) there is reasonable justification.
For example, the common "no documentation" warning with sub-packages
such as -devel. Often all documentation goes into the main package, and
there's nothing suited to go in the -devel package.
In my opinion it should be like that for W and E rpmlint messages
indistinctly. Maybe E may be scrutated more, but it isn't obvious either.
Agreed, as a loyal rpmlint user and someone with quite a few packages
and reviews on his name, I must say this is the only way. Many rpmlint
errors are errors in most cases but not always, some should / could be
changed to warnings. But there will never be a rpmlint without false
positives on the error front.
This is also why my suggestion for adding rpmlint to the buildsys and
makefile.common test builds, contains a whitelist.
Regards,
Hans
--
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
