On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:26:06 +0100, MR (Matthias) wrote: > Hi, > > lately, I stumbled upon a review, which I thought, wouldn't suffice. > It looks like the following > > name: ok > summary: ok > license: ok > handling locale files: ok > rpmlint output: only spelling warning > Not needed BuildRequires: (names), please remove them in git. > > APPROVED. Please mention the ticket number. It may be that the spec file is short/simple and that the listed items cover most of what was necessary to review. I find it silly to even mention "name: ok". > My question is: is this review sufficient, It is. There is no requirement for the reviewer to flood the ticket with a huge list of checkmarks about things that possibly don't even apply to a package. It doesn't make reviews better, and it doesn't make them safer either. That is because the guidelines aren't bullet-proof and not complete either. In other places, the guidelines are not detailed enough and only experienced reviewers understand the background. Btw, I think we've had cases before where reviewers, who have posted an overwhelming checklist, missed several items (or got them wrong). [not limited to %optflags, plugins in -devel packages, static libs, licensing, files in wrong subpkgs] > Do we trust our reviewers, We do. In the same way we trust our packagers. And still, some packagers *and* reviewers (re-)introduce packaging mistakes *after* a package has been approved. ;) Sometimes the changes in package git invalidate the review results completely, because a packager messes up the packaging. > so there's no need of bureaucracy? Fill a growing list of reviews where the reviewer has missed important items, and then let's figure out what can be done about that. Let's not punish good reviewers with tiresome bureaucracy. > Why should/must I do more > than just setting the flag or writing 7 catchwords? Do whatever helps you to gain confidence in approving a package. If you feel it's necessary to process a checklist and include that checklist, do that. Once you've posted such a list in a review, what would you do if another reviewer pointed out that you've missed a couple of unowned directories, for example? (note: that's still a MUST item in the review guidelines) -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
