On Friday, 19 May 2017 10:55 Stephan Kulow wrote:
Put yourself in a reviewer's shoes for a moment. The rpmlint check about this summary thing is pretty old - and afaik not even a SUSE thing, but an upstream check.
Sure - but there was a proposal to promote this warning to an error. I seriously doubt promoting it to an error would be significanly easier than dropping it.
Plus it's really easy to fix if you see it. And the fact that packages are submitted without it being fixed indicates to reviewers that people ignore rpmlint (and they are right as far as my person is concerned :).
Yes, easy to fix... Just talking about summary, IIRC it's - must not end with a period - must not start with uppercase (or lowercase? Can't remember) letter - must not start with an article - must not contain package name (which is funny if it's a common word) - must not be longer than description (even for subpackages) Sometimes it's really frustrating; and after having to rebuild the whole package just to hit another check, frustration quickly turns to anger.
But if packagers ignore rpmlint, it's up to the reviewers to have a look if (more important) warnings were ignored. And this is a tiresome work and if you do it often a day your focus shifts towards details. Thankfully our review team *does* it often a day and it's an important part of our development process. So bear with them heading into details and support them by not questioning *everything* they say.
I do not question everything, far from it. As I said, I'm trying to eliminate as many warnings as possible (except e.g. writing 20 manual pages which do not exist in upstream). Even those I find pointless. But if someone suggests to turn "summary should not end with a period" into hard error, I'm sorry, that's way over the line. Michal Kubeček -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org