Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (520 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Tallying the quality of package descriptions
On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 10:55 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
But if packagers ignore rpmlint, it's up to the reviewers to have a
if (more important) warnings were ignored. And this is a tiresome
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
part of our development process. So bear with them heading into
and support them by not questioning *everything* they say.

Now I would like to stress that this goes into both directions -
reviewers tend to forget how important the 99.9% are that make up
packaging and are not summaries with dots. So they need to put
themselves into 'imperfect packager's shows more often. Because I
"that will teach them" is a) a signal of abuse of power and b) a
of 'us vs them', that is very unhealthy in this context.

So please guys: work together not against each other.

I apologize for the bad wording in my mail - the ':)' after 'make it an
error' did obviously not give away sufficiently that this was not
entirely serious.

There are definitively other rpmlint warnings that would be worth more
effort than 'summary does not end in dot' (that one is a pure aesthetic
question - of course it appears 'weird' in YaST Software manager if the
packag summary is a sentence; and such details are in the end what
makes up a polished distro.

Keep in mind: you can have a technically perfect product, but if all
screens are full of spelling errors, you're still not going to take the
product serious.

The part which I was hiding in my message was rather: find an rpmlint
that is worth addressing to raise the quality, idnetify packages
currently failing the test and then start working on closing the gap.
Many of the rpmlints could simply do with 'more description' why
somebody thinks it is important. Once this becomes clear to packages,
many tend to actually have less trouble following them.

And, it does obviously not help that there are a bunch of rpmlint
checks that are simply wrong all the time (I mostly hit them around the
topics of shared library packages, where there keeps to be complaints
about missing deps in -devel and the like)

so recap: find hurting ones, fix them in the existing packages, find
false positives, report them as bug against rpmlint and get them away.
The more reliable rpmlint reports, the more we (the reviewers and
packagers) can actually take its output as reason for action.

< Previous Next >