Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/14/2009 09:55 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Mer 14 octobre 2009 05:47, Chris Weyl a écrit :
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Matthias
>> Clasen<mclasen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> That part of the review guidelines has always struck me as bizarre.
>>> After all, wouldn't it seem even better to compare the actual tarballs
>>> with each other, byte-by-byte, than relying on a checksum ?
>> Um. An easily reproducible, cryptographically strong checksum? :)
> This is one test I never do, nothing will stop the packager from
> changing the
> packaged archive as soon as the review is finished,
> so the whole thing is a
> major waste of time for everyone involved IMHO
Sort of. I think of it as CYA for the reviewer. If something bad slips
in, at least it's documented that it was good when I checked it, and the
responsibility then falls on the packager.
> (as is posting specs in
> addition to SRPMs BTW.
Not agreed. Many packaging issues can be easily be found in specs,
without downloading with the actual *.src.rpm.
True. I always wget both, install
the SRPM and diff the specs, and ask
about any differences if the packager goofed. Though I certainly see
your point, especially for extremely large pacakges, like games with
huge globs of data (i.e. wesnoth), etc.
Fedora-packaging mailing list
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love