Dne 17.2.2018 v 14:01 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> "NG" == Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> NG> As upstream for rpmlint, I do not believe anyone cares at all about >> NG> rpmlint in Fedora. >> >> We seemingly care so little for it that the rpmlint status appears on >> every bodhi update. >> >> I did spend some time trying to make rpmlint better ages ago and kind of >> got blocked by the restriction that it (at the time) had to conform to >> whatever RHEL4 wanted. But that was obviously a long time ago. >> >> NG> Until we can fail builds on rpmlint errors (as both Mageia and >> NG> openSUSE do), it's pointless to consider rpmlint as something that >> NG> ensures things stay clean and sane. >> >> If you can tolerate no false positives from rpmlint then there must be a >> pile of things it doesn't look at. I always saw it as a useful advisory >> tool but have difficulty imagining that you could gate off of it. >> >> What I did was hack my local setup (which does auto-rpmlint directly >> within vim) to accept magic comments to tell it to stop complaining >> about certain things. I recall suggesting that upstream a long time ago >> but not having much luck. But again, we're talking over a decade here. >> > The problem with Bodhi The problem with Bodhi is that we don't use Bodhi for Rawhide where majority of work should be done. Vít > is that it's too late. By that point the build > has been submitted, it's gone through all the steps involved in > submitting updates, and to make matters worse, *all* test results are > now hidden from people by default. It took me a while to figure out > where the test results had gone after the change occurred. I honestly > thought we had given up on those things initially. I've always felt > that some of those tests should be happening post-build, not > post-update submission. Failing builds on "obviously bad" packages > makes for a bigger incentive to improve packaging. > > As for toleration of false positives, that's more of a sign that we > don't quite have a well-tuned configuration and maybe there are some > checks in rpmlint itself that need to be tweaked. In both Mageia and > openSUSE, we have rpmlint policy packages that define the checks, the > "scores", and the threshold in which it is bad enough to make > something be rejected. The reason for this is because we want to block > packages that are "obviously wrong" from being accepted by the build > system. It's really the only way to make people consider improving > their packaging. Everyone has tried nicer ways, and it doesn't work. > > And in both Mageia and openSUSE's case, you can define > <srcpkgname>.rpmlintrc files that are picked up by the build system to > ignore issues that are obvious false positives. Yes, this could be > abused, and perhaps we shouldn't do that. But if you want packaging to > improve, you need a way for people to reliably determine what they're > doing is "good" or "bad". Right now, we don't have that, and my > personal feeling is that if I spend the effort in doing so, it would > be wasted because it wouldn't result in any improvement. > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
