[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: ambiguity in the guidelines



On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 08:17 +1200, Michael J. Knox wrote:

> Does the FE package guidelines out weigh rpmlint output or does rpmlint 
> out weigh the FE guidelines?
>
> If rpmlint is of higher priority, then the chnagelog needs fixing, if 
> the FE packaging is higher, then its fine as is...

I happened to reply to a related message in private mail a few minutes
ago, so I'll take the chance to copy/paste relevant bits of that reply.

By the way, shouldn't packaging issues be discussed on the
fedora-packaging list instead of here?

---

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.

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.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]