On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:29:19 +0100, RC (Ralf) wrote: > >> Wasn't this kind of bugs supposed to be caught by AutoQA? > > It caught it, > > > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1132/alsa-utils-1.0.25-7.fc16 > > > > but obviously only after the automatic request to push it to stable, > > and it does not stop such updates automatically yet. > Great, its not even able to catch obvious cases - Fedora is a great > experience, isn't it? Please refrain from posting similar comments. Negativity doesn't improve productivity. Sure, it's a disappointing and embarrassing case once again and confuses users. The package maintainer has ignored the early tester feedback in bodhi even. Voting in bodhi should not turn into a fight between package update submitter and testers. The packager ought to have added all alsa-* packages to the same ticket, especially since he's the primary person to be aware of his explicit versioned dependency on alsa-lib. For the ordinary tester it's much harder to detect this problem, as usually a tester doesn't examine "rpm -qR alsa-utils" for a minor update that installed fine with updates-testing enabled. It's really a scenario where the Fedora Updates System needs to prevent a packager from pushing something. That has not been implemented yet, however. And more will need to be implemented to get it right. For example, multiarch/multilib package updates need to be able to pull in additional packages (from Fedora "Everything" repo) for newly added multiarch deps [i.e. a needed i686 pkg not found in the x86_64 "fedora" repo would need to be made available in the "updates" repo, similar to what the old Extras pushscripts tried to do]. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
