Bug 521624
Summary: | RFE: please do not omit some checks for different input types | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Karel Volný <kvolny> |
Component: | rpmlint | Assignee: | Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta> |
Status: | CLOSED CANTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | 11 | CC: | manuel.wolfshant, sanjay.ankur, tmz, ville.skytta |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-09-07 17:17:03 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Karel Volný
2009-09-07 10:25:38 UTC
*** Bug 511931 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 517875 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** There are some reasons for the current behavior. First, rpmlint does not have a full featured specfile parser, and almost certainly likely never will (although some improvements in this area may appear as/if functionality becomes available in python rpm bindings). On the other hand, from binary and source packages we can get bits of information much more robustly, avoiding macro expansion/evaluation issues etc etc. Therefore we're geared towards checking packages rather than specfiles. Second, we want to avoid parroting same errors. For example, if one runs rpmlint on a srpm and its corresponding binary rpm, we don't want to report same line length "problems" once for the specfile inside the source rpm, once for the source rpm, and once for each binary rpm produced. I think we in some cases (maybe even this example one, didn't double check) fail to do this and there are duplicate issues reported, but I hope you get the point. Third, some checks just do not make sense in all cases. For example undefined symbol and unused direct dependency checks for ELF binaries require that the dependencies of the package being checked are installed, and the only scenario where we have any kind of assurance about this is when we're working on _installed_ binary packages. Unfortunately I don't think this bug is fixable as is - all things just cannot be done for all types of checks, so I'm closing it as CANTFIX. There certainly are areas where there is room for improvement, but those need to be handled as specific cases - there's no magic bullet that would fix everything in one go. Feel free to report them as you come across them, preferably in the upstream tracker at rpmlint.zarb.org in case the issue is not specific to Fedora rpmlint packaging or guidelines. |