Excerpts from "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"'s message of Mon Nov 21 14:25:22 +0100 2011: > > [1] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview > > [2] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/browser/api/README > > Is this not something that releng/autoqa could use as well as in run > against all already existing specs and automatically file bugs if they > aren't ( and to keep things ) up to guidelines? I wouldn't be against it, but I can imagine all the shouting on the bugzilla and mailing lists this would cause(i.e. "But my package is working!!"). Plus output of our tool is more verbose than rpmlint (thought it does more as well). There will always be tests that cannot be automated for one reason or the other. In cases like that we have ways to add helpful information to the template (for example output of "licensecheck" run on all files in tarball could be added to licensing part). This helpful output would be considered noise for a lot of packagers I guess. And there will always be false positives. I would hope none of our checks will have false negative (i.e. check will report "A-OK", but the guidelines would be broken). All that said: If our QA/releng guys find some part of fedora-review needs some tweaks to be usable for tasks they have to do: file issues in our trac and we'll do our best. -- Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx> Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
