On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:54:22AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 08:35:53AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > >> >b) put a sensible default in the guidelines > >> > >> IMO, the guidelines already include a sensible default. > > > > In short id -un doesn't make sense, even epoch or target/arch > > would make more far more sense in a guideline's BuildRoot. > > > > Note that the guidelines are also there to educate people how to write > > clean and non-obfuscated specfiles. I'm quite sure the BuildRoot is > > cut & pasted in 99.99% of the packages making it a defacto proper > > thing to do. If it's bogus we need to fix it and not endorse it > > furthermore. > > It's simply my opinion that it's not worth fixing something that isn't > broken. It's not broken as in "fix all packages that use id -un", it just shouldn't be promoted anymore as a default since it makes no sense. And given that it does create workload on packager and reviewer everytime this will come up again, let's fix it. > > Two independent reviewer considered this a blocker for a > > review's acceptance (even though it's marked "preferred"). > > The reviewers need to be whacked with a clue-stick. A working (non-broken) > buildroot is *not* a blocker. That's what I meant with "wrong education". I can't blame reviewers for following the guidelines to the letter (and since they are scarce, I also don't want to use any punishment on them ;). I thought this would be an EasyFix. :/ -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpxNICaRC1sV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
