On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:33:28 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote: > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > > On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 17:59, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > > > Shrug, he's not alone in that. I was against *mandating* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > > > > It's not mandatory. It just happens to be in the specfile templates as > > well as recommended in the QA checklist because of its "official" status > > according to jbj's comments. > > Well, it used to be mandatory and all the QA checklist still require it. > It can't be more mandatory than that imo. I guess someone has to remove it > from the Wiki then ;) That infamous "QA checklist" is misunderstood frequently. It is hopelessly incomplete. If you go through it step by step upon reviewing a package, you can miss many other issues. If, however, the checklist were extended, it would grow *a lot* and increase the hurdle to QA significantly. The list in its current form just gives inspiration on what might be worth examining. --
