On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 15:44 +0200, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 03, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Parts of the specfile guidelines have been just amended by me. It might just be considered a redactional (linguistic) edit, but it feels too much on either side of the fence, so here is an explicit notification to those who care.
If somebody wonders about what this is: I rejected package changes from Jan to my packages, because they where only cosmetical nature, didn't fix any bugs and are even with the new wording in the wiki fine. For that reason, he is now rejecting my package submissions with reference to the above changes and some more references to the wiki, but the other ones have absolute nothing to do with the package.
That sounds like a very strange approach to the things - the guidelines are 'guidelines' - there are things that are stricter (e.g. share lib packages must not have non-versioned files) for technical reasons, no static libs (or if it must be, a static-devel) for security reasons, patch references in changes for debugging reasons, and then there are 'weaker' ones, that have lower impact. like Wordings of summaries/description, how many variables I use in a spec file, and so on. Changing the wiki to enforce personal style sounds like the wrong approach
Why I write this now here? Because Jan did insist on that I move the discussion to the public mailing list.
Do we have a specific package the review team can look at as a collective? Cheers, Dominique