On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 21:23 +0100, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> ville.skytta@xxxxxx (Ville Skyttä) writes:
> > The check doesn't do recursive depsolving (nor do I think it should),
> > ie. it will generate noise about things pulled in by other dependencies.
>
> rpmlint operates on a single package only without having a view about
> the available repository.
Of course.
> But rpmlint creates other
> false positives too and because there is not automatic process
> behind, this would be a cosmetic effect only.
Well, past and existing bad behaviour is IMO not a reason to add more of
it, and a lot of rpmlint _is_ about cosmetic issues :]. I have this now
in my local version:
printWarning(pkg, "%%doc file '%s' creates possible additional dependency '%s'" % (f, dep))
> Obviously, solving this isssue would be a very interesting task. But it
> would be also complicated because you have to deal with ranges;
Sure. Dunno if it's worth spending much time on though.
> But these versioned deps are pretty useless with the current rpm epoch
> mechanism. The perl autodep generator does not know about existing
> epochs and rpm does not allow to require a certain upstream version
> (non-existing epoch is always assumed as '0')
Actually it does know some, but the implementation is so bitrotten that
it has been practically useless already for a while, see around line 200
in /usr/lib/rpm/perl.req.
> > Thoughts? Enrico, did you send this upstream already?
>
> Yes, sent it to flepied at mandriva.
Cool, let me know if you get a response, my rpmlint patch pile is
growing painfully large and is about to grow some more, and I haven't
heard back from him in a few monthts :(
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
