Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le jeudi 05 mars 2009 à 12:15 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit : >>>>>>> "JJ" == Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> JJ> I have been dinged repeatedly in reviews for using the group >> JJ> Development/Libraries/Java. >> >> Why? We have no guidelines relating to the use of the Group tag. You >> can use what you want. If someone's dinging you, they're probably >> just parroting an rpmlint complaint. Perhaps it would be more >> productive to get the Fedora build of rpmlint to stop complaining >> about Group altogether. I don't see a need to add a guideline >> indicating that there is no guideline. > > People take what rpmlint says as the letter of the law because it's too > convenient. That is not going to change. > > It would IMHO do a lot of good if FPC reviewed all the existing rpmlint > errors and warnings, had the ones Fedora does not care about disabled in > our package, and asked its maintainer to pass new ones for review before > they're activated. > I can see the attraction in this but I'd rather continue to just pass specific instances that should be disabled to the maintainer as they come up. There's a lot of rpmlint warnings that are exactly that: This could be a problem but may not be. Without specific examples of when the warning is right and when it is wrong as will be brought up when a conflict over rpmlint's messages arise, it will be hard for the Packaging Committee to make an informed decision. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
