Dan Čermák kirjoitti 17.7.2021 klo 23.10:
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
What is the situation wrt new packages? Should we enforce the use of
rpmautospec during reviews or is it completely optional?
I think we should encourage the usage of rpmautospec for new packages,
provided that the packager feels comfortable enough to use it. E.g. I
wouldn't suggest it for someone's first package. But this shouldn't
become a *MUST*, at least not yet.
I am curious regarding the reasons for not recommending rpmautospec for
new maintainers? It is an automation feature that removes manual steps
from the process. Using it is simpler than doing the same manually. I
think we should offer the simplest possible process for newcomers and
only recommend manual overrides for use cases that automation cannot
handle (yet).
A transition period where all the tools are updated to cope with
rpmautospec may be needed. We do not want to offer a process that prints
errors and warnings that should just be ignored. At least fedora-review
and rpmlint have issues, discussed in another subthread.
Otto
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
