On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Excerpts from "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"'s message of Mon Nov 21 14:25:22 +0100 2011:
> > [1] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReviewI wouldn't be against it, but I can imagine all the shouting on the
> > [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?
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
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
