[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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



On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 08:32:59PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> 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',
> 
> The no-packager-tag error is filtered in Fedora's rpmlint config (although I'm 
> not quite sure why), and a bunch of others are redundant because rpmbuild 
> will fail if the tag is not around, but I think "it simply ignores missing 
> tags" is not quite accurate.  If you feel something is missing, feel free to 
> file a bug report in Bugzilla or upstream rpmlint tracker.
> 

I checked it on several packages; for example, when I removed Name,
Version, Release, Group, Summary, License, URL, BuildArch, SourceX,
PatchX from F-10's dcobook-dtds, rmplint happily answered

0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

It seems to me rpmlint _will not_ fail if the tag is not around,
therefore I feel free to file a bug report.

David


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]