On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 15:09, Dag Wieers wrote:
Then you clearly have much more time than I have.
Yep! I'm unemployed so there's no sense trying to out-talk me; only
out-reasoning will do :-)
> > 2] I have many packages that _have_ to change the %setup line,
> > 230 of the 622 spec-files which is over 30% (remember perl-packages ?)
> Doesn't matter. I took a look at several of your perl spec's.
> They do:
> %setup -n %{rname}-%{version}
> which will get caught by #2 above.
And you said you hadn't seen any ocassions where %setup -n was needed
What I
said was:
%setup -n foo-oldver [I've never seen this construct, only
%{name}-%{version} which will fail b/c #2] or the tarball doesn't
include versions in its toplevel directory [I have seen this])
I can see that you might have misinterpretted it. Mea Culpa.
If I had written "I've never seen 'foo' and 'oldver' hardcoded
into
a %setup macro, only %setup -n %{name}-%{version} which will fail"
it would have been clearer.
I understand you wanted to know the number of
packages that have '-n' used and not %{version}. Still 87 do, about 13%.
Excellent. Good data. So over 1 in 10 packages can potentially get
past the packager and have to be caught by the QA people. Not trivial.
Although I must say I don't see why that would be of any value in
the
discussion.
Because no other package will make it past the rpmbuild stage with
mismatched version and Source0. So only these are potential QA
problems.
> > 3] I don't rely on QA people as I'd rather
automate and assume a
> > QA person has better things to do.
> That's fine. But your question was whether the QA person would catch
> the problem...
Well, we will not know, would we. I'm just stating it's useless to ask
this from a QA person if you can automate it.
True.
Coupled with Ville's comment that package QA people really
should be checking out web pages and so forth to make sure they have
a canonical source rather than cut 'n paste, macros in Source: make more
and more sense to me. (Although I'll definitely miss cut and paste when
I'm QA'ing an update package and I already checked out the canonicalness
in the previous version.)
I suppose this is why this was good to continue even though it was not
mandatory. I now have another reasoned out best practice to put to use.
-Toshio
--
Toshio <toshio(a)tiki-lounge.com>