On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Michael Schwendt wrote:
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.
Ok, then please remove the non mandatory steps from it, if you want to
remove the hurdle. It would have made this discussion non-existing ;)
-- dag wieers, dag(a)wieers.com,
http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]