On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:33:28 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 17:59, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> > Shrug, he's not alone in that. I was against *mandating* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>
> It's not mandatory. It just happens to be in the specfile templates as
> well as recommended in the QA checklist because of its "official" status
> according to jbj's comments.
Well, it used to be mandatory and all the QA checklist still require it.
It can't be more mandatory than that imo. I guess someone has to remove it
from the Wiki then ;)
That infamous "QA checklist" is misunderstood frequently. It is hopelessly
incomplete. If you go through it step by step upon reviewing a package,
you can miss many other issues. If, however, the checklist were extended,
it would grow *a lot* and increase the hurdle to QA significantly. The
list in its current form just gives inspiration on what might be worth
examining.
--