While cleaning up my old mail I ran across the following message which I don't believe we ever acted upon:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2010-March/006980.html
Just a minor change to the guidelines to mention running rpmlint on both source and produced binary RPMs, since some folks think you run it on the spec file or just the src.rpm.
I'm not sure if it bears mentioning that you get additional output if you install the binary RPMs and then run rpmlint on the package names (not the RPM filenames). I do this for all of my reviews using the mock chroot, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to do that.
I say, let's use the tool to it's fullest, since we have it. We want people to run it, we should specify what that means so all reviews are on the same footing.
I typically run it on the SRPM and the binary RPM, not installed. Is the output different when run on the RPM file and the installed RPM?
It does indeed do more on installed rpms, including W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
I've made the requested changes to the guidelines; propose also adding:
Note that rpmlint will perform additional checks if given the name of an installed package. For example, yum install foo-1.0-1.f20.x86_64.rpm; rpmlint foo will perform a set of tests on the foo package that rpmlint foo-1.0-1.f20.x86_64.rpm cannot.
yum install foo-1.0-1.f20.x86_64.rpm; rpmlint foo
rpmlint foo-1.0-1.f20.x86_64.rpm
Not sure if we should add a recommendation that this be done, however.
I've updated the guidelines. Release announcement:
A note was added about additional checks obtained by running rpmlint on installed packages.
Metadata Update from @rdieter: - Issue assigned to tibbs
Login to comment on this ticket.