On 2012-11-27 19:33, Jan Pokorný wrote: > Hi review experts, > > I think the check from $SUBJ does not make much sense nowadays > (perhaps it did in the past). At least I am unable to find > any clause about it in Fedora Packaging Guidelines. > > If I am wrong, please make obvious what is meant with this check, > otherwise I would suggest dropping this check so as to avoid > confusion in the package review process [*]. > > [*] As an anecdotic reference, I found a review [1] where > the packager understood the check title as to literally use > "%{name}" macro as a prefix (something not exactly a subject > of the check, doesn't hurt, though). > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825593#c2 > > Thanks, > Jan > _______________________________________________ > fedorareview mailing list > fedorareview(a)lists.fedorahosted.org > https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/fedorareview Review experts... I don't know who you refer to, but it's certainly not me :) That said, the link in the subject test is [1]. This is not (and never has) describing any conditions like this on SourceX/PatchX. So, simply speaking we have a bug. Furthermore, at a second look the check on SourceX is just silly. Sources are named by upstream, and as packagers we will live with whatever name they use. OTOH, patches is another issue. As maintainers we often handle more than one patch, they are sent via email etc. In this context, it does make sense to prefix the patches with the package name IMHO. We *do* have a place for tests which are not backed up by the guidelines, the EXTRA section. One way to go would be to skip the test on SourceX, and place the PatchX check under EXTRA. Another way is of course to just skip the check. Or perhaps we are both wrong, and there is a GL mandating this kind of naming?! Thoughs? --alec 1: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL.