Quoting Philipp Thomas
* Claudio Freire (klaussfreire@gmail.com) [20120830 13:34]:
And I've seen patch tags without bug numbers accepted.
At least for those someone fluent in python should write a test for rpmlint.
As currently the Patch tag line is a 'encouragement' but not strictly enforced by all devel projects (and Factory for the matter), rpmlint will bite back badly here or you'll just end up with accepted warnings. Also, rpmlint can't really see if the patch is NEW (and as such should fall under the new guideline of patching, which is nor enforced yet), or not. Raising warnings (or even errors) on all 'wrongly annotated' patches will give you a warning on > 11'000 patches currently (of which only a small fraction has a tag line at all!) Also, the patch tagging / annotation has seen a lot of discussion in earlier threads. I know of currently three ways that are actively being used (with their pros and cons): - No tagging at all - 1 - Line tagging in the .spec file, next to the Patch<n>: entry - Full annotation in the .patch / .diff file. Projects that use the 1-line tagging do not exclude to have full annotation in the .patch file neither of course (often the case with patches extracted from a VCS / git). I personally prefer the 1-line tags (on any update of a package, I usually skim through the .spec anyway), but am fine with full descriptive .patch files (seen some 'rebase' work loosing the info though: so more care needs to be taken there). Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org