Prelink success story :)

Dag Wieers dag at wieers.com
Thu Feb 26 18:39:31 UTC 2004


On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:33:28 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 17:59, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Shrug, he's not alone in that. I was against *mandating* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > > 
> > > It's not mandatory.  It just happens to be in the specfile templates as
> > > well as recommended in the QA checklist because of its "official" status
> > > according to jbj's comments.
> > 
> > Well, it used to be mandatory and all the QA checklist still require it. 
> > It can't be more mandatory than that imo. I guess someone has to remove it 
> > from the Wiki then ;)
> 
> That infamous "QA checklist" is misunderstood frequently. It is hopelessly
> incomplete. If you go through it step by step upon reviewing a package,
> you can miss many other issues. If, however, the checklist were extended,
> it would grow *a lot* and increase the hurdle to QA significantly. The
> list in its current form just gives inspiration on what might be worth
> examining.

Ok, then please remove the non mandatory steps from it, if you want to 
remove the hurdle. It would have made this discussion non-existing ;)

--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list