Can rpmlint do better with doc yaml files?

[Mohammed Morsi]

  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 at 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