Prelink success story :)

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:33:28 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 17:59, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > 
> > > Shrug, he's not alone in that. I was against *mandating* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > 
> > It's not mandatory.  It just happens to be in the specfile templates as
> > well as recommended in the QA checklist because of its "official" status
> > according to jbj's comments.
> 
> Well, it used to be mandatory and all the QA checklist still require it. 
> It can't be more mandatory than that imo. I guess someone has to remove it 
> from the Wiki then ;)

That infamous "QA checklist" is misunderstood frequently. It is hopelessly
incomplete. If you go through it step by step upon reviewing a package,
you can miss many other issues. If, however, the checklist were extended,
it would grow *a lot* and increase the hurdle to QA significantly. The
list in its current form just gives inspiration on what might be worth
examining.

--