On 16/02/18 17:21, Martin Kolman wrote: > On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 10:52 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: [...snip...] >> As upstream for rpmlint, I do not believe anyone cares at all about >> rpmlint in Fedora. One more warning or error won't mean anything. From >> time to time, I have considered making a proper rpmlint policy for >> Fedora, but I always decide not to because it's clear that that people >> don't care about it and ignore it. > > I think this is more or less a chicken and egg problem - rpmlint output is > currently so insanely bad and useless that > most people indeed ignore it. So arguably if the output was better more > people would likely use it. I certainly might be a weird guy with odd perspectives .... or I'm haven't touched packages which has had so enormous issues with rpmlint it didn't make sense to fix it. Or I'm lacking good enough experience (I've not been maintaining that many Fedora packages). But my "worst" example was probably the openvpn package I'm now in charge for (and I am a core upstream developer for that project as well). But it didn't take that much efforts to iron out most of those issues. False positives are also easily filtered out by adding .rpmlint to the dist-git repository. If anyone have examples of those really nasty rpmlint reports ... that would be far more valuable to this discussion than just claiming it is "insanely bad and useless". And since we have the attention of the rpmlint maintainer, perhaps there would be a better chance to figure out how to report those issues in a better way - or remove what isn't truly an issue. -- kind regards, David Sommerseth
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
