How to calculate priority for missing tests or %check

[David Cantrell]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:57:38PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 02/28/2014 09:54 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:24:48AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 15:56 +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> >>
> >>>I'm not sure what purpose does the URL field serve nowadays but it looks like it
> >>>can be removed from the spec file (and RPM for that matter)!
> >>
> >>No, please. It could be made *optional*. But there are certainly cases
> >>where the upstream is non-discoverable - the generic-release one is a
> >>fun one, for instance. There are cases where a project has forked, and
> >>Google does not make it particularly obvious which side of the fork is
> >>which. It's not a useless field.
> >
> >I'd vote for optional, but there are plenty of other useless fields in spec
> >files.  Group, for instance.  Considering we don't even use those groupings.
> 
> URL is and has always been optional. Group used to be mandatory but
> has been optional for about five years by now. Fedora policies could
> of course differ with the technical side.

Sorry, yes, I was specifically referring to packaging policy.

-- 
David Cantrell <dcantrell at redhat.com>
Manager, Installer Engineering Team
Red Hat, Inc. | Westford, MA | EST5EDT