Summary of the 2009-01-20 Packaging Committee meeting

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

>   "Anything in the spec file which is not obvious should have a
>   comment explaining it.
> 
>   Some examples of non-obvious items include (but are not limited to):
> 
>     * Some explicit requires
>     * FHS violations
>     * Changes to optflags
>     * Not using %configure or make install
>     * Provides/Obsoletes
>     * Modified tarballs
>     * Licensing or legal related changes"
> 
> I trust these are really just examples, not a list of things that have
> to be commented on.  And that reviewers who are blindly running
> through the guidelines and not paying much attention won't treat this
> as a bullet list of must-have comments.

That's the intention.  If reviewers don't read them that way we'll have
to write it in a way that is clearer.

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090120/8f2a155b/attachment.sig>