Re: rpmlint improvements

[Kamil Paral]

----- "seth vidal"  wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 09:53 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Some technical details now:
> >
> > A. From my opinion it's pretty obvious I would like to see one
>
> config file
> > per package, distributed in that package -- the "lintian way". Those
>
> config
> > files could be installed into /usr/share/rpmlint/whitelist/<package>
>
> or
> > similar location. We can already use this approach for autoqa -- we
>
> can
> > extract this file from the binary package (or similarly named file
>
> for
> > the source package) and provide it with --file option to rpmlint.
>
> But, it
> > would be very beneficial if upstream rpmlint also gained these
>
> capabilities,
> > the maintainers would then see the same output on their localhost as
>
> the
> > output provided by autoqa. So, convincing rpmlint upstream to
>
> support these
> > lintian-style per-package config files would be absolutely great.
>
> one config file per pkg? or one per branch per package?
>
> Would it make since to have:
>
> fedpkg rpmlint
>
> which checks the pkg in the branch you're currently in
>
> using .rpmlint as the config for that pkg, if it exists.
>
> and then have autoqa draw the .rpmlint file from the git branch it is
> building in the same way?
>
> then the pkger has control over it and if there is a different
> maintainer for el5 vs f13 they don't have to quibble over rules.
>
> thoughts?
> -sv

Oh, this starts to be really complicated :) My idea was one config 
file per binary package.

I have no experience with package maintenance, but different Fedora
releases of the same package are represented just by different git 
branches, right? So if that need occurs, there should be no problem
in keeping different config file versions for f13 and el5 branch,
am I right?

The main difference is just that I propose to include that file directly
in that binary package. That means AutoQA doesn't have to download
it from anywhere, and (more importantly) arbitrary rpmlint run 
produces the same result as our AutoQA run -- of course just if this 
feature is supported in upstream rpmlint.

Did I get your comment right?

rpmlint improvements

[Seth Vidal]

On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 04:09 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> Oh, this starts to be really complicated :) My idea was one config 
> file per binary package.

per binary pkg? Why per binary pkg?
> I have no experience with package maintenance, but different Fedora
> releases of the same package are represented just by different git 
> branches, right? So if that need occurs, there should be no problem
> in keeping different config file versions for f13 and el5 branch,
> am I right?

that's correct - hence my suggestion.
> The main difference is just that I propose to include that file directly
> in that binary package. That means AutoQA doesn't have to download
> it from anywhere, and (more importantly) arbitrary rpmlint run 
> produces the same result as our AutoQA run -- of course just if this 
> feature is supported in upstream rpmlint.

That would mean every pkg gets an addition of the rpmlint config file?
EVERY pkg?

Why?

-sv