ambiguity in the guidelines
Michael J. Knox
michael at knox.net.nz
Wed Jul 5 22:45:53 UTC 2006
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.
More information about the Fedora-maintainers