On 11/07/2012 12:53 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Jaeger (aj@suse.com) wrote:
On the opensuse-packaging mailing list, we've recently formed a team that will take care of the packaging guidelines and introduced a small process to change them: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines_change_process
As part of that process, we're announcing regularly the changes to the packaging guidelines. Since this is a first such announcement, it is not a complete change but just points out a few things from the past few months. In the future, we will send out this email once a month.
The Packaging guidelines can be found at http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines .
That sounds great!
I'm quite new to most of this, but I just wanted to mention / confess that in the last few days I have been attempting to improve
http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Ruby
based on discussions on opensuse-ruby. There are still some unanswered questions which hopefully will be resolved very shortly. I very much like the idea of enforcing policy by extending rpmlint; however it seems that some people are happy to ignore rpmlint warnings :-/ I guess the badness numbers could be tweaked to deal with this. The review team does look at rpmlint issues but mostly we tend to explain why we would like to have them fixed but let the package pass anyway if it's only about minor ones. And I wouldn't want to change this inclusive approach, since sometimes people even react to our humble suggestions ;-)
BTW. we do decline packages when (even minor) rpmlint pile up to level that isn't acceptable anymore (subjective, off course). -- With kind regards, Sascha Peilicke SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)