Hi, On Thu, 15 Mar 2007, Stephan Kulow wrote:
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. There are things on earth harder to believe - say Matz before 9 on a thursday :)
What exactly does that have to do in this thread?
I'm not speaking against comments but against having a policy to reject packages without comments.
That would be a too hard policy, I agree. Especially I wouldn't agree to only reject packages which don't comment 'rm' commands in %install sections, that's rather arbitrary. But I'm sympathetic to a policy where the checkin team would reject a package for needing comments. But the checkin team already can reject packages, so there's no need for such extra policy.
Because rm calls are no special than sed calls or grep -v calls or _anything_ hacky. But as others said: what is hacky lies in the eye of the reader/writer, so I don't want to see that in a policy.
"Packagers should have a clue what they're doing or document they have none" is as good as it gets for me :)
See above. If the checkin team would look over .spec files and sees questionable practices, it should require a comment from the maintainer, even if that maintainer completely knows what he's doing (or thinks so). That is sort of a policy too, but the detailed rules (when and where to require comments) would lie at the shoulders of the checkin team. That uncertainty would push maintainers somewhat to actually write sensible comments more often, which IMO is a good thing. So, instead of policy, we should encourage the checkin team to actively reject package changes with a too high magic-to-comment ratio. Ciao, Michael. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org