Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (138 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Proposal: Any "rm" in .spec %install must be commented
  • From: Michael Matz <matz@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:28:53 +0100 (CET)
  • Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703151524300.25448@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi,

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Stephan Kulow wrote:

> > No. Especially cluelessness needs documentation.
> > Example:
> > "# I don't care about this gconf stuff. Remove seems to help."
> >
> > This is a very useful comment.
> > It pinpoints the actual problem that the maintainer has.
>
> Yeah, what good is this comment then?

It could for instance remind the very same packager, that there once was
an issue with gconf, which he might revise later. Sort of a

# FIXME: needs proper solution

comment. Such a thing is highly usefull. It also documents to other
people that the maintainer was in a hurry or didn't care enough at that
time to investigate a full solution. These are all good reasons to
include a quick hack. But then you have to _write_ that it was a quick
hack, so you yourself know that it only was a quick hack, instead of a
solution, so that you don't try to find out a year from now what the
solutioness was in that hack (i.e. you forgot that it was a hack only).

> Unless of course the build team sees itself in a position that it has to
> be too much time, so it wants to verify the clueness of all packager
> comments. I doubt it.

I don't see what the build team has to do with that.
Are you really making the case for not writing comments? I can't believe
that.


Ciao,
Michael.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups