Review guidelines and rpmlint

[Callum Lerwick]

On Sun, 2007-03-11 at 20:24 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 02:22:16PM -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> > 
> > If you look closely, rpmlint output is separated into warnings (W:) and
> > errors (E:). Just like a C compiler.
> 
> If I remember well Ville said that the difference between W and E was
> quite arbitrary. 

And we can always make them less arbitrary. Its not set in stone.
rpmlint is *our* tool.

> > Errors MUST be fixed to pass review. (Or to pass the upcoming
> > rpmlint-after-build test)
> 
> Some errors have to be ignored (from the top of my head, errors about
> setuid binaries, for example).

You didn't quote the part where I said:

> > And if rpmlint flags something as an error that shouldn't be, file a
> > bug against rpmlint. The test can be revised, or downgraded to a
> > warning.

If there's any justification at all to ignore an error, ever, then it
should be downgraded to a warning.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070314/b9f8b54e/attachment.sig>