<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugzilla.rosalinux.ru/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_CONFIRMED "
title="CONFIRMED - [2021.1] Make rpmlint less noisy"
href="https://bugzilla.rosalinux.ru/show_bug.cgi?id=11417#c5">Comment # 5</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_CONFIRMED "
title="CONFIRMED - [2021.1] Make rpmlint less noisy"
href="https://bugzilla.rosalinux.ru/show_bug.cgi?id=11417">bug 11417</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:mc2374@mclink.it" title="Giovanni Mariani <mc2374@mclink.it>"> <span class="fn">Giovanni Mariani</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Grigorev Andrey from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=11417#c2">comment #2</a>)
<span class="quote">> Pong...
>
> I had a little experience editing this mechanism. It doesn't look
> complicated. But now there is no criticality. Obviously, that's why no one
> goes inside. As always, everyone is busy.
>
> * We don't need information about unpacked debugs, which is output if there
> are unpacked or missing files in %files.
>
> * We also have a very uninformative case of SourceXXX: or PatchXXX:
> inconsistency with the actual existence of files.
> It seems that the output of
> rpm spec -P*.spec
> would be enough.</span >
I would like to add also the case of the plainly wrong "W: patch not applied",
when using the %apply_patches macro: if we are not going to deprecate or remove
it altogether, then we should avoid to pollute the build log with this useless
noise.</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>