Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 03:11:56PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >> I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. The current >> packaging review guidelines are really huge, and take a long time to >> wade though. Some of them really can be just reduced to bullet point >> checklist items, while others need intelligent thought on the part of >> the reviewer. > > It's actually worse than you state ... some of them are checked just > fine by rpm/rpmlint, and so don't need to be checked at all. > > eg: rpmlint checks the License field is valid and rpm checks that > there are no duplicate files in %files, so both of those are > unnecessary. > > rpmlint could check a whole lot more too, eg. upstream URL exists, > source matches tarball, Things like the URL and source URL are problematic to automate as they require judgement. A human should be verifying that the URL is the canonical location for the project in question rather than a machine verifying that the URL exists. I do agree with the general statement that more automation is good -- just be sure to understand what is being checked so you know if you're automating the correct thing. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
