I just ran rpmlint against an ruby -doc subpackage and found 196 warnings about:
... rubygem-sequel-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/sequel-3.16.0/ri/Sequel/Dataset/requires_sql_standard_datetimes%3f-i.yaml %3f This tag contains something that looks like an unexpanded macro; this is often the sign of a misspelling. Please check your specfile.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 196 warnings.
About 194 warnings are the same, complaining about yaml files having unexpanded macro.
¿Can we do better with rpmlint? (posting rpmlint output in bz requests with this large non-usefull informaction looks just a waste)
Guillermo ------------------------ http://www.neotechgw.com http://gomix.fedora-ve.org
On 10/22/2010 05:43 AM, Guillermo Gómez wrote:
I just ran rpmlint against an ruby -doc subpackage and found 196 warnings about:
... rubygem-sequel-doc.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/doc/sequel-3.16.0/ri/Sequel/Dataset/requires_sql_standard_datetimes%3f-i.yaml %3f This tag contains something that looks like an unexpanded macro; this is often the sign of a misspelling. Please check your specfile.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 196 warnings.
About 194 warnings are the same, complaining about yaml files having unexpanded macro.
¿Can we do better with rpmlint? (posting rpmlint output in bz requests with this large non-usefull informaction looks just a waste)
Guillermo
http://www.neotechgw.com http://gomix.fedora-ve.org _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
I've run into this problem alot myself. Since its fairly standard with the RI documentation, you can just ignore this part of the rpmlint output, no need to include it in the BZ issue.
Annoying yes, but rpmlint does need other updates to conform to Fedora guidelines, for example it still complains about the missing BuildRoot: tag.
Though rpmlint seems to have been updated for F14 (I'm not sure to what extent though), so perhaps at some point we can either patch it or RI itself to resolve this issue.
-Mo
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org