bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx said: > I meant that I couldn't find any errors using rpmlint and mock. Sorry if you > found my comment a bit offensive as it seems my quote failes to bring > positive appreciation. Maybe just a general comment (if I may be so bold as to state some things that would probably be deemed obvious by many people here): it's all a matter of *trust* and *communication*. On the premises, we have: - a packager that has brought a new package to review - the fedora community that has brought a checklist of things to be checked before any package can go in the repository - you (the reviewer) that has accepted the job of taking the package and the checklist, and to go off and check that the package does indeed pass all the tests There are now two scenarii. In the first, you come back with the package and the checklist, and you show everyone the checklist with all the tick-marks you have added in front of all the items you have checked. There are also some comments. For example, for the item that says that the upstream tarball must match the tarball included in the package there is noted: OK - upstream tarball matches with package: checksum is 1012 etc. In the second scenario, you simply come back and say "it all looks fine" and show nothing. Which kind of review do you think will make other community members put more trust in you ? Cheers, Christian -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
