On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 08:23 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 08/02/2012 12:02 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 23:52 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
>> Where would you like bug reports?
>>
>> I tried it against one of my own review tickets. It found a number of
>> issues however almost all of them except one was wrong.
>>
>> For example it complained of no clean section with a rm -rf %{buildroot}
>> which the specfile contained, same message except in the install section
>> etc.
>
> Are you sure it wasn't complaining that the specfile actually contained
> those lines?
>
> The Fedora guidelines say those lines are not needed, and shouldn't be
> there for new packages, unless the package maintainer wants to ensure
> compatibility with EPEL 5.
Hmm I guess I mis-read it then.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
at the beginning of %install
When I read that, the ! tells me I failed that. So Package does not run
rm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install. I think the double
negative there is what threw me. I think putting the MUST part into the
actual description would help. For example
[!] Package MUST NOT run rm -rf %{buildroot} ...
Clearly tells me that I failed that because I am running the rm command.
Whereas a MUST preceding the line and the failure can be interpreted as
I failed because the package does not run rm -rf ... Not sure if you see
what I mean. Now that it is pointed out it does make more sense.
Thoughts? Is it just me that read that totally wrong?
Maybe it would be better formulated as:
[!]: MUST: Buildroot MUST NOT be present (NOTE: this is not true for
EPEL5)
[!]: MUST: Package MUST NOT run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
at the beginning of %install
What do you think?
Pierre