>>>>> "TH" == Till Hofmann <thofmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: TH> Not strictly a script error: I already updated most of my packages TH> without rebuilding them, so they are all false positives. That's fine. I could exclude those but I don't know which they are and the benefit would be pretty low. TH> I guess I'm not the only one who updated the Spec without a rebuild, TH> so I'm not sure checking the source packages is the best approach. Well, it shows the current state of rawhide. (And I'm checking the binary packages, not the srpms.) Rebuilds in rawhide do not have a particularly high cost so it doesn't really hurt to do them, but certainly the mass rebuild in a couple of weeks will take care of them. I'll rerun the script then. Certainly if you know you don't have any issues (which you can't really be sure of if you didn't actually build and test) then you can ignore the report. TH> Is it possible to directly check the Spec? It is, but it's not as reliable or easy and wouldn't actually reflect what's in rawhide currently. Some specs can't be parsed without having the full git checkout, and you have to be careful when parsing specs because they execute arbitrary code. You can do it by eye pretty easily, but there are just too many packages right now for me to do that. - J< _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/IDCFRHK2MIIDH7UKBVTSFB4SKMGFWUAG/
