Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
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.
One can use custom rules (and fedora does use custom rules) for quite a
while.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
