ambiguity in the guidelines

[Michael J. Knox]

Ville Skyttä wrote:
  > Changes to the guidelines go through the packaging committee, and I'll
> continue to try to make rpmlint behave as well as possible within their
> scope as well as sensibly outside of it when there are no explicit
> rules.  I think warning from rpmlint, not an error is the right thing to
> do at the moment.

Perhaps the "defacto" policy should be that if two or more 
guidelines/tools/people/etc disagree that the current FE packaging 
guidelines be considered correct. Should the other 
guidelines/tools/people/etc feel strongly enough to do so, they should 
be put forward for consideration.

Having this could easily avoid situations like this and allow for a more 
fluid growth and change in the packing guidelines rather than a heavy 
handed approach that seems to have been used.

Just my 20cents (cuz the NZ dollar is pretty week ;P )

> FWIW, my opinion is that including EVR information in changelog entries
> should be at least a SHOULD (and I wouldn't mind a MUST).
> 
> FWIW #2, and FYI in case you're interested, there's also an upstream RFE
> about recognizing and "allowing" different ways of specifying the EVR in
> changelog entries: http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/23
> I'm not a big fan of that suggestion, but if the alternative is that
> people are inclined to omit the EVR altogether, then I'm all for it.

I have always used EVR and will continue to do so until is not allowed 
(which I doubt would happen). It should be a SHOULD and not a MUST 
unless there is an overwhelming technical and logical reason to be so.

Thanks

Michael