On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 14:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 06/02/2010 01:49 PM, James Laska wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 10:49 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> On 06/01/2010 10:43 PM, James Laska wrote:
> >>> Greetings package maintainers,
> >>>
> >>> Want to get notification of any breakage in your just-built koji
> >>> packages? This includes results of rpmlint [1],
> >>
> >> Unless rpmlint starts to use a massively cleaned up set of rules, its
> >> results are mostly noise.
> >
> > Which packages do you maintain where the output has become unmanageable?
>
> Noise is managable, but ...
>
> * Just have a look at the output rpm produces on any arbitrary packages.
> 90% of the output it produces is just (silly) noise.
>
> * Just have a look into most package reviews: Many of them suffer from
> churn on the (silly) noise rpmlint produces.
It's a *lint tool. So, depending on one's perspective, all lint tools
produce noise. If it's not useful to you, you can choose not to opt-in.
Also, if you don't [co-]maintain any packages, this won't be an issue.
> That's why I consider rpmlint's current ruleset not to be suiteable for
> automated QA.
Agreed, not all packages fit into a neat bucket. But if there are any
specifics you can highlight, and if you are interested in making the
output more meaningful to a package maintainer, we can start the
discussion of how to address the problem. If we never use rpmlint, it
won't get any better.
Some previously discussed ideas include ...
1. Blacklist - add support so maintainers can specify which results
to ignore
2. Only highlighting when rpmlint output regresses - this is
intended to help maintainers of unruly packages or packages
where rpmlint output has not been monitored/controlled since
initial packaging
3. Addressing the concerns raised by the package
Thanks,
James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
