Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Wednesday 2015-05-20 09:24, Johannes Meixner wrote:
On May 19 16:35 Stanislav Baiduzhyi wrote (excerpt):
... disable of rpmlink check seems like a cheating ...
A <package_name>-rpmlintrc file in the package sources with explanatory comments why and what false positives are explicitly filtered out makes clear what is going on, cf. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_checks
For an example you may have a look at https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/home:jsmeix/rear116/rear116-rpm...
Wonder if anybody is ever going to fix rpmlint, or whether we should keep adding more and more rpmlintrc exceptions like those.
Patches welcome. So far vendor handling was not an issue at all. The check in question is here: https://github.com/openSUSE/rpmlint-checks/blob/master/CheckFilelist.py I've fixed the spelling now at least. The way rpmlint is used currently assumes that people build packages for inclusion into openSUSE. In that context it is right to warn that official packages can't pick random locations in /opt. The feature of 3rd party packagers use build.opensuse.org without the intention of adhering to the same rules like packages in openSUSE is not covered by the current openSUSE rpmlint package. But then it's just a warning. FWIW it is possible to override the vendor in obs on project level by adding %vendor to the Macros section of prjconf. By default obs puts a back reference to itself there. The rpm vendor string however is not the same as the provider name in /opt anyways. Rpmlint would somehow need to use a mapping based on http://www.lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/providers.txt cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org