[Mageia-dev] Rpmlint configuration, false positives

Sat Aug 27 22:06:49 CEST 2011

Am 04.03.2011 22:30, schrieb Michael Scherer:
+>
+>
+> But we can filter and configure it to be a little more perfect.
+>
+> In a rather autocratic fashion, as the maintainer of rpmlint ( both packages
+> and uptream ), as a packager representative, and as a apprentice dictator
+> ( since there is lots of open position in this sector since a few weeks ),
+> I propose that this become the canonical source for rpmlint configuration.
+>
+> In practice, that mean that false positives will have to be added there,
+> that stuff that are noted as errors need to be set in that package, and
+> any policy changes must be made there.
+>
+> So the question is "how do we deal with evolution ( ie, how do we decide
+> something is now a error, or no longer one".
+>
+> Traditionally, packagers didn't care at all, and so the configuration bitrotted
+> since a long time, and people didn't used it, and I just added false positives
+> when packagers notified it ( ie, almost never, except when I noticed some of 
+> them ).
+> I suspect that my lack of communication around that didn't help ( and so
+> people didn't knew they could ask for adding a false positive to the list
+> of error to ignore ).
+>
+> Yet, I think we can do better, so feel free to suggest any mad idea for this.
+
+What about the following, AFAIK those are deprecated and rpmlint shouldn't 
+complain about:
+
+*files-attr-not-set*        as i was told by dmorgan, empty default attributes 
+(%defattr(-,root,root))
+are useless and not needed, but without it rpmlint complains with this warning 
+for every file.
+What's the status quoe here? rpmlint issue or maybe an rpm bug?
+Empty %defattr still needed or not and if not, could you make that warning an 
+exception?
+
+*no-%clean-section*
+*no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean *related to the former, as %clean is not 
+needed anymore,
+because it's done automagically by rpm as a builtin
+
+
+All the following should be deprecated by filetriggers:
+
+*library-without-ldconfig-postin
+library-without-ldconfig-postun
+menu-without-postin
+menu-without-postun*
+
+
+I think the following are bogus, but i may be totally wrong:
+
+*strange-permission *       for SOURCES and SPEC it complains if not 0644, why 
+is that?
+*%ifarch-applied-patch*    if the build is broken only for i586 for example, 
+what's wrong about the %ifarch?
+Or maybe i don't get the description fully:
+
+    /Patches must be applied on all architectures and may contain
+    necessary configure and/or code patch to be effective only on a given arch./
+
+With the last part of the explanation and the warning itself, i'm confused. If 
+it is only
+effective on one arch and fixed build there, why apply it blindly to the other 
+where this may break build
+or have other unwanted sideeffects?
+