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

Re: jpackage.org-derived Groups



Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le jeudi 05 mars 2009 à 12:15 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit :
>>>>>>> "JJ" == Jerry James <loganjerry gmail com> writes:
>> JJ> I have been dinged repeatedly in reviews for using the group
>> JJ> Development/Libraries/Java.
>>
>> Why?  We have no guidelines relating to the use of the Group tag.  You
>> can use what you want.  If someone's dinging you, they're probably
>> just parroting an rpmlint complaint.  Perhaps it would be more
>> productive to get the Fedora build of rpmlint to stop complaining
>> about Group altogether.  I don't see a need to add a guideline
>> indicating that there is no guideline.
> 
> People take what rpmlint says as the letter of the law because it's too
> convenient. That is not going to change.
> 
> It would IMHO do a lot of good if FPC reviewed all the existing rpmlint
> errors and warnings, had the ones Fedora does not care about disabled in
> our package, and asked its maintainer to pass new ones for review before
> they're activated.
> 
I can see the attraction in this but I'd rather continue to just pass
specific instances that should be disabled to the maintainer as they
come up.  There's a lot of rpmlint warnings that are exactly that:  This
could be a problem but may not be.  Without specific examples of when
the warning is right and when it is wrong as will be brought up when a
conflict over rpmlint's messages arise, it will be hard for the
Packaging Committee to make an informed decision.

-Toshio

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


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