On 2012-11-27 19:33, Jan Pokorný wrote:
Hi review experts,
I think the check from $SUBJ does not make much sense nowadays
(perhaps it did in the past). At least I am unable to find
any clause about it in Fedora Packaging Guidelines.
If I am wrong, please make obvious what is meant with this check,
otherwise I would suggest dropping this check so as to avoid
confusion in the package review process [*].
[*] As an anecdotic reference, I found a review [1] where
the packager understood the check title as to literally use
"%{name}" macro as a prefix (something not exactly a subject
of the check, doesn't hurt, though).
[1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825593#c2
Thanks,
Jan
_______________________________________________
fedorareview mailing list
fedorareview(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/fedorareview Review experts... I
don't know who you refer to, but it's certainly not
me :)
That said, the link in the subject test is [1]. This is not (and never
has) describing any conditions like this on SourceX/PatchX. So, simply
speaking we have a bug.
Furthermore, at a second look the check on SourceX is just silly.
Sources are named by upstream, and as packagers we will live with
whatever name they use.
OTOH, patches is another issue. As maintainers we often handle more than
one patch, they are sent via email etc. In this context, it does make
sense to prefix the patches with the package name IMHO.
We *do* have a place for tests which are not backed up by the
guidelines, the EXTRA section. One way to go would be to skip the test
on SourceX, and place the PatchX check under EXTRA. Another way is of
course to just skip the check.
Or perhaps we are both wrong, and there is a GL mandating this kind of
naming?!
Thoughs?
--alec
1:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL.