On Mittwoch, 26. April 2017 09:46:39 CEST Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Wednesday 2017-04-26 03:23, Simon Lees wrote:
The reasoning behind this is currently when doing reviews I often come across rpmlint warnings that people have missed and probably should be fixed. What I suspect happens is people sometimes see a green "succeeded" presume everything is ok and don't bother checking the build logs or rpmlint output.
Not just the webui, the same holds true for `osc r`.
I suspect this because i'm probably also guilty of doing it at times as well.
And sometimes, the "toolchain" is at fault. The python packages have lots and lots of "duplicate file" warnings, but you can't just fdupes that away in that python case. Adding an rpmlintrc file to over 100 packages seems like a bad approach, as does removing the duplicateness check from rpmlint.
Out of interest, can you provide some (different) examples? I am aware of some build artifacts/meta-data (e.g. the {not-,}zip-safe egg info, which just contais a newline (0x0a), i.e. it constains no information, but is also not treated as an empty file). Kind regards, Stefan -- Stefan Brüns / Bergstraße 21 / 52062 Aachen home: +49 241 53809034 mobile: +49 151 50412019 work: +49 2405 49936-424 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org