Package Review Stats for the week ending January 18th, 2009

[Ville Skyttä]

On Thursday 29 January 2009, David Tardon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:40:43AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > Do RH employes have sponsors too? A lot of the bad reviews are done by
> > RH people and a lot of bad specs come from RH folks. Somebody pointed me
> > to:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433678
> > and I had a quick glance over it before Andreas added his comments:
> >       * no list of tests that have been run
> >       * SourceURL is missing
>
> What about fixing rpmlint to check for missing tags? Just now it simply
> ignores them,

$ grep "^'no-.*-tag'" /usr/share/rpmlint/TagsCheck.py
'no-packager-tag',
'no-version-tag',
'no-release-tag',
'no-name-tag',
'no-summary-tag',
'no-description-tag',
'no-group-tag',
'no-changelogname-tag',
'no-epoch-tag',
'no-url-tag',

The no-packager-tag error is filtered in Fedora's rpmlint config (although I'm 
not quite sure why), and a bunch of others are redundant because rpmbuild 
will fail if the tag is not around, but I think "it simply ignores missing 
tags" is not quite accurate.  If you feel something is missing, feel free to 
file a bug report in Bugzilla or upstream rpmlint tracker.

Regarding "SourceURL is missing", there's no such tag.  I guess the OP meant 
that "SourceX is not a URL" which is something rpmlint could check from spec 
files.  Doing it for all SourceX would probably be quite annoying though - 
it's not unusual at all for packagers to add additional sources to packages 
[0] and making them upload them somewhere just to appease rpmlint doesn't 
sound like a good idea to me.  Perhaps it'd be feasible to check that all 
SourceX that are tarballs, zips and the like are URLs.
http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/165
http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/170

[0] Desktop entries, icons, init scripts, launch scripts, sysconfig snippets, 
other config files, scripts to generate tarballs from scm, etc etc