Bug 399901 - Please target standard terminals, not one-of-a-kind 79 column terminals
Please target standard terminals, not one-of-a-kind 79 column terminals
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: rpmlint (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Ville Skyttä
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: F9Target
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-11-26 13:59 EST by Nicolas Mailhot
Modified: 2009-09-07 06:51 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-11-27 15:26:41 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nicolas Mailhot 2007-11-26 13:59:49 EST
rpmlint very anally tries to force people to create lines of 79 columns max in

No 79-column terminal was ever shipped. That means what rpmlint asks is
incompatible with the defaults of common tools such as fold.

If the intent is to leave some margin, usual mail margin is 72 column not 79.

In other words rpmlint does not make any sense nor follows any common convention
which is wasting the time of everyone involved (not to mention no one is
actually limited to 80×25 terminals nowadays)

Please fix to at least standard 80 column width.

Comment 1 Ville Skyttä 2007-11-27 15:26:41 EST
Some editors wrap 80-column lines so that the 80th char is wrapped to the next
line in their default settings.  Some others and especially terminals make it
difficult to see whether the line following a 80 char one is attached to the 80
char one or a new line.

Even though the issue is a very cosmetic one considering %description and
Summary, as far as I'm concerned, 80 as the max line length is a no go, but I
wouldn't mind 72.  But because it's a matter of taste, I'm not inclined to make
any changes to this without a public mailing list discussion that reaches some
kind of a conclusion -> WONTFIX.  If such a discussion and conclusion takes
place, feel free to reopen and I'll make changes accordingly.
Comment 2 Karel Volný 2009-09-07 06:51:44 EDT
you may be interested in bug #521630 which may fix you issue - but if you insist on changing the default, just initiate the discussion ...

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.