On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 08:32:59PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > 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. > I checked it on several packages; for example, when I removed Name, Version, Release, Group, Summary, License, URL, BuildArch, SourceX, PatchX from F-10's dcobook-dtds, rmplint happily answered 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. It seems to me rpmlint _will not_ fail if the tag is not around, therefore I feel free to file a bug report. David -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
