On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 07:01:53AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > checks), meeting the requirements of a build system (=> completing the > build dependencies). However, Fedora Legacy aims at modifying the source > rpms as little as necessary, so reviewers don't generally need to spend > any time reading the spec file beyond the diff against the previous > release. It has been stated before that Red Hat's build system is different than fedora.us and fedoralegacy, and not as strict w.r.t. BuildRequires. As a result, many Red Hat packages that we me provide updates to do not have a proper set of BuildRequires: and hence may fail to build on our buildsystem. Therefore, the BuildRequires: checks are something that should really stay on the QA checklist. Additionally the ldd checks are an extremely good idea to make sure a missing BuildRequire isn't causing the resulting binary to miss some features silently. I believe it would be good to add some canned set of commands to help QA testers verify these types of things. For example, these can be used on the old and new source and binary RPM's to see what changed: rpm -qpl redhat-package.rpm > redhat-package rpm -qpl redhat-package-update.rpm > redhat-package-update diff -u redhat-package redhat-package-update Perhaps a similar, but slightly more complicated script could be devised to do ldd checks. > checklist don't apply at all to Fedora Legacy. I feel that starting with > this list as a basis is approaching the "QA problem" from the wrong > direction. Start at the top and refine the procedures and policies. I disagree that starting with this list is a bad idea. Sure, many of the things can be removed, but many of them are also trivial. These policies have been refined over time and it would be a shame to ignore them and start from scratch.
