Summary of the 2009-01-20 Packaging Committee meeting
Toshio Kuratomi
a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Jan 20 21:00:07 UTC 2009
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>
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list