On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 22:28 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx) said: > > rpmlint catches this, I'm sitll in favor of running rpmlint after a build, > > check the output against a whitelist of allowed output and if there is any > > output not in the whitelist, fail the build. We would need to integrate the > > same use of rpmlint in make <arch> from makefile.common then (or maybe > > first). > > Do we really want to hold up builds on the rpmlint maintainer fixing > things in rpmlint? > If this is the same thought as past discussions, the whitelist is per package. I make a build. The rpms are run through rpmlint. The issues reported are compared against the previous build's rpmlint. If there are problems not previously whitelisted, the rpm is not pushed to the repo until the maintainer somehow adds the warnings to the whitelist or updates the spec so it no longer causes the error. (Maybe it's filling in a reason and submitting it to the packageDB. Maybe it's a specially formatted comment in the spec file. I don't know how people would want to implement the feature.) So there's no waiting on the rpmlint maintainer. This could also be interesting as it would let the rpmlint maintainer/author see which of the rpmlint tests are causing the most false positives. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
