Dne 17.2.2018 v 14:01 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <ti...@math.uh.edu> 
> wrote:
>>>>>>> "NG" == Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> writes:
>> NG> As upstream for rpmlint, I do not believe anyone cares at all about
>> NG> rpmlint in Fedora.
>>
>> We seemingly care so little for it that the rpmlint status appears on
>> every bodhi update.
>>
>> I did spend some time trying to make rpmlint better ages ago and kind of
>> got blocked by the restriction that it (at the time) had to conform to
>> whatever RHEL4 wanted.  But that was obviously a long time ago.
>>
>> NG> Until we can fail builds on rpmlint errors (as both Mageia and
>> NG> openSUSE do), it's pointless to consider rpmlint as something that
>> NG> ensures things stay clean and sane.
>>
>> If you can tolerate no false positives from rpmlint then there must be a
>> pile of things it doesn't look at.  I always saw it as a useful advisory
>> tool but have difficulty imagining that you could gate off of it.
>>
>> What I did was hack my local setup (which does auto-rpmlint directly
>> within vim) to accept magic comments to tell it to stop complaining
>> about certain things.  I recall suggesting that upstream a long time ago
>> but not having much luck.  But again, we're talking over a decade here.
>>
> The problem with Bodhi

The problem with Bodhi is that we don't use Bodhi for Rawhide where
majority of work should be done.


Vít


>  is that it's too late. By that point the build
> has been submitted, it's gone through all the steps involved in
> submitting updates, and to make matters worse, *all* test results are
> now hidden from people by default. It took me a while to figure out
> where the test results had gone after the change occurred. I honestly
> thought we had given up on those things initially. I've always felt
> that some of those tests should be happening post-build, not
> post-update submission. Failing builds on "obviously bad" packages
> makes for a bigger incentive to improve packaging.
>
> As for toleration of false positives, that's more of a sign that we
> don't quite have a well-tuned configuration and maybe there are some
> checks in rpmlint itself that need to be tweaked. In both Mageia and
> openSUSE, we have rpmlint policy packages that define the checks, the
> "scores", and the threshold in which it is bad enough to make
> something be rejected. The reason for this is because we want to block
> packages that are "obviously wrong" from being accepted by the build
> system. It's really the only way to make people consider improving
> their packaging. Everyone has tried nicer ways, and it doesn't work.
>
> And in both Mageia and openSUSE's case, you can define
> <srcpkgname>.rpmlintrc files that are picked up by the build system to
> ignore issues that are obvious false positives. Yes, this could be
> abused, and perhaps we shouldn't do that. But if you want packaging to
> improve, you need a way for people to reliably determine what they're
> doing is "good" or "bad". Right now, we don't have that, and my
> personal feeling is that if I spend the effort in doing so, it would
> be wasted because it wouldn't result in any improvement.
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to