> My previous comment was wrto adding static analysis instrumentation to
> rpmbuild for other packages.
Yeah, I knew that after reading your comment. `rpmbuild` and `rpmlint` are
doing the analysis.
My proposal is about for static analysis on RPM itself, as you mentioned.
> For static analysis on RPM itself by adding make targets, then LCOV/GCOV
> coverage targets and adding test cases is usually more useful than static
> analysis warnings.
I agree with you.
Adding coverage test target is also useful for maintainability.
If "we do run static analyser from time to time locally.", I want to know the
content as a make target.
I think we do not have to run those static analysis targets in CI as a first
step.
Knowing the used analysis tools and the rules by configuration file makes us to
contribute easily.
> Note that I have years of experience with static analysis tools applied to
> RPM sources ;-)
OK, let's promote it :)
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/306#issuecomment-323544604
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
