Package Review Stats for the week ending January 18th, 2009

[Panu Matilainen]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Christoph Wickert wrote:

> Am Donnerstag, den 29.01.2009, 20:32 +0200 schrieb Ville Skyttä:
>> On Thursday 29 January 2009, David Tardon wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:40:43AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>>>> Do RH employes have sponsors too? A lot of the bad reviews are done by
>>>> RH people and a lot of bad specs come from RH folks. Somebody pointed me
>>>> to:
>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433678
>>>> and I had a quick glance over it before Andreas added his comments:
>>>>       * no list of tests that have been run
>>>>       * SourceURL is missing
>>>
>>> What about fixing rpmlint to check for missing tags? Just now it simply
>>> ignores them,
>>
>> $ grep "^'no-.*-tag'" /usr/share/rpmlint/TagsCheck.py
>> 'no-packager-tag',
>> 'no-version-tag',
>> 'no-release-tag',
>> 'no-name-tag',
>> 'no-summary-tag',
>> 'no-description-tag',
>> 'no-group-tag',
>> 'no-changelogname-tag',
>> 'no-epoch-tag',
>> 'no-url-tag',
>
> Could you make it also check for
> a) empty %doc statement as in xfce4-settings
> b) duplicate tags as the duplicate description in ricci?

Instead of piling weird checks things like these two into rpmlint, file 
them as rpm bugs (rpm.org Trac is preferred for non-Fedora specific 
issues), rpmbuild shouldn't permit such things in the first place.

 	- Panu -