On Thursday 29 January 2009, David Tardon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:40:43AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > Do RH employes have sponsors too? A lot of the bad reviews are done by > > RH people and a lot of bad specs come from RH folks. Somebody pointed me > > to: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433678 > > and I had a quick glance over it before Andreas added his comments: > > * no list of tests that have been run > > * SourceURL is missing > > What about fixing rpmlint to check for missing tags? Just now it simply > ignores them, $ grep "^'no-.*-tag'" /usr/share/rpmlint/TagsCheck.py 'no-packager-tag', 'no-version-tag', 'no-release-tag', 'no-name-tag', 'no-summary-tag', 'no-description-tag', 'no-group-tag', 'no-changelogname-tag', 'no-epoch-tag', 'no-url-tag', The no-packager-tag error is filtered in Fedora's rpmlint config (although I'm not quite sure why), and a bunch of others are redundant because rpmbuild will fail if the tag is not around, but I think "it simply ignores missing tags" is not quite accurate. If you feel something is missing, feel free to file a bug report in Bugzilla or upstream rpmlint tracker. Regarding "SourceURL is missing", there's no such tag. I guess the OP meant that "SourceX is not a URL" which is something rpmlint could check from spec files. Doing it for all SourceX would probably be quite annoying though - it's not unusual at all for packagers to add additional sources to packages [0] and making them upload them somewhere just to appease rpmlint doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Perhaps it'd be feasible to check that all SourceX that are tarballs, zips and the like are URLs. http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/165 http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/170 [0] Desktop entries, icons, init scripts, launch scripts, sysconfig snippets, other config files, scripts to generate tarballs from scm, etc etc -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
