How to calculate priority for missing tests or %check

[Panu Matilainen]

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.

And FWIW no, I dont follow the "there are some packages with incorrect 
URL, thus the field must be useless and should be removed" logic here. 
Upstream project website does not change twice a week, more like perhaps 
twice a decade if even that. If the package maintainers role is not to 
save all the users from the trouble of doing the same job, then why are 
we packaging stuff in the first place. Just google it up!

	- Panu -