On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 08:14:31AM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Kushal Das <kushaldas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I am starting a project called review-o-matic which will do reviews of > > Fedora packages based on discussions at > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-October/msg00023.html > > . > > We know of having couple of scripts being used by different people to > > do so, but this tool's target is to consolidate those efforts and add > > a number of additional features as well. The basic idea is to remove > > the grunt work from package reviews. > > > > Cool. Apparently I didn't mention it there, but I've already started work on > a base implementation. I'm curious how you're intending to do this -- > perhaps there's room for collaboration? It would be great if some effort could also be spent extending rpmlint itself to handle most of these things. Why implement a new tool when we have one already? Also, we need to document somewhere what review items are checked by rpmlint. Last time I did a review, I tried to figure out which of the items on the Packging Guidelines were checked by rpmlint, even going as far to check the source code, but gave up in frustration. It is redundant to give rpmlint output, and then still have to report on every review guideline--even ones that the lack of rpmlint output implies. Furthermore, since the Packaging Guidelines can change, it would help if they were versioned in some way so that rpmlint could refer to which version of the guidelines it is following. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
