[Fedora-packaging] package review template

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Oct 7 14:32:07 UTC 2008

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 03:11:56PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> I think you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. The current
>> packaging review guidelines are really huge, and take a long time to
>> wade though. Some of them really can be just reduced to bullet point
>> checklist items, while others need intelligent thought on the part of
>> the reviewer. 
> It's actually worse than you state ... some of them are checked just
> fine by rpm/rpmlint, and so don't need to be checked at all.
> eg: rpmlint checks the License field is valid and rpm checks that
> there are no duplicate files in %files, so both of those are
> unnecessary.
> rpmlint could check a whole lot more too, eg. upstream URL exists,
> source matches tarball, 

Things like the URL and source URL are problematic to automate as they
require judgement.  A human should be verifying that the URL is the
canonical location for the project in question rather than a machine
verifying that the URL exists.

I do agree with the general statement that more automation is good --
just be sure to understand what is being checked so you know if you're
automating the correct thing.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20081007/3511e0a7/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list