rpmlint [was]: Intent to Package: BloGTK

[Iago Rubio]

On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 12:59 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 11:48 -0500, Brian Pepple wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 11:20 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > > Hey folks,
> > >  I've got a first packaging of BloGTK up at:
> > >   http://linux.duke.edu/~skvidal/RPMS/extras/blogtk/
> > > 
> > > Would anyone be willing to look it over and see if I've missed anything
> > > in the packaging guidelines?
> > 
> > Are the epochs needed on the pygtk2 packages in your Requires &
> > BuildRequires?  Also, rpmlint gives an error that there is no version in
> > your changelog.
> 
> oversight on the epochs, fixed, thanks.
> added versions to the changelogs though I hate overloading that field.
> -sv

Is rpmlint a valid information source for rpm sanity ?

Before reading Brian's post, I tried rpmlint at it seems it breaks some
of the fedora's guidelines.

As example it screams when a package tries to obsolete itself.

E: cssed obsolete-on-name

I researched a bit and found this on the upstream rpmlint changelog.

* Tue Aug 03 2004 Frederic Lepied <flepied at mandrakesoft.com> 0.60-1mdk
  - added obsolete-on-name error: a package sould not obsolete itself, as
    it can cause weird error in tools. (Michael)

On the rpm changelog it's reduced to,

2004-08-03 08:09  Frederic Lepied <flepied at mandrakesoft.com>

        * TagsCheck.py: added obsolete-on-name

This error clashes with the guidelines at:
http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/developers-guide/s1-rpm-guidelines.html

5.- The package may obsolete itself.

Any hint ?
-- 
Iago Rubio