On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote: > 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. Ok, then please remove the non mandatory steps from it, if you want to remove the hurdle. It would have made this discussion non-existing ;) -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
