On 05/19/2017 06:32 PM, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Michal Kubecek schrieb:
[...] Do not take me wrong; in no way I want to say all checks are pointless. But some of them definitely are ("summary should not end with a period" is one of them) and I'm really worried to see that the overall attitude among reviewers is that they should be enforced even harder rather than discarded. And that more and more should be added.
rpmlint moves rather slowly, I'm not aware of a constant flow of annoying and useless tests coming in. There's quite a big number of tests we 'always' had or for a long time though, most of them are from upstream. It can't hurt to review the current state every once in a while.
This is probably a reasonable step to take before making warnings more visible.
Mind compiling a list of pointless checks that should be removed? A reasonable proposal can be discussed on the packaging list. Adding some more ignore lines to the rpmlint package is easy once there is consent.
rpmlint.opensuse.org¹ and whether or not a check is documented in the wiki² can help with that. #1 failure in factory is no-manual-page-for-binary for example.
I think that is certainly a candidate for removal, its certainly not enforced or useful. Maybe we should consider patching rpmlint to add an "Info" category, for example the "free software foundation address is out of date" warning is a nice piece of info but we certainly shouldn't be enforcing maintainers to go and fix it upstream but its still nice to know it needs doing in case the packager feels like creating a upstream bug for it.
cu Ludwig
[1] http://rpmlint.opensuse.org/rules/openSUSE:Factory/x86_64/standard [2] https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_checks
-- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B