On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 12:13:03PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > Le Lun 7 décembre 2009 23:21, John Dennis a écrit : > > > * Should rpmlint really be emitting warnings and errors for items not in > > the guidelines? (not just about file/directory but a number of other > > issues which frankly seems dubious). If rpmlint and the guidelines are > > divergent then should rpmlint be a recommended tool during package review? > > rpmlint is very convenient but > > 1. has been known to emit stupid warnings in the past (for example, during > months it failed *any* spec file with UTF-8 inside, when UTF-8 was a Fedora > choice, and while FPC had not asked for any filtering) > > 2. has refused to include checks for some Fedora packaging guidelines (because > they were "distro specific" (ie the maintainer disagreed with FPC; today the > same checks are performed by Debian's lintian on .debs, but rpmlint still > ignores them) > > I don't think this can resolved unless the rpmlint maintainer agrees to pay > more attention to Fedora packaging guidelines. Right now rpmlint is whatever > rpmlint maintainer feels is right. It may align or not with our own packaging > guidelines. If rpmlint upstream doesn't want to implement our guidelines, then either we need a new tool, or try to make rpmlint support 'plugins', so that we can drop extra Fedora rules into the standard upstream set without needing to hack the main source. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
