On 02/15/2012 06:00 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:10:00 +0100, RC (Ralf) wrote:
[...] Playing down the issues and to wipe them under the carpet
doesn't help anybody.
Who's "playing down the issues"? Don't make up such things
Well, as I read your response, you have been accusing the packager,
trying to shift respnsibilty away from rel-eng.
Have you ever heard the word "final inspection" (Germ. "Endkontrolle")?
In Fedora this is rel-eng => this kind of breakages is rel-eng's
responsibility.
These issues are a topic not just on this mailing-list, but in (all?)
Fedora related community support channels. Clearly they are not hidden
under the carpet. That's enough bad publicity, and 3rd party repos
add additional broken deps. Still one doesn't need to post sarcastic
comments or misinterpret/misunderstand the reason for the broken dependency.
It's simply wrong to conclude that testers should have noticed it.
Fact is: After all these years Fedora is around, rel-eng is still
pushing packages with broken deps, despite QA and AutoQA, and Fedora's
bureaucracy.
And one thing still hasn't changed either: if this is your pet peeve
issue, why haven't you done anything in all these years that extends the
existing infrastructure with the missing feature?
<sigh/> I am can't get involved into everything.
I am not blaming the alsa-utils/libs packager(s), I am blaming those
people who are supposed to assure the distros' releases and updates are
consistent.
I only added that pushing inter-dependent updates as multiple bodhi
tickets makes it harder (if not impossible) for existing testers to catch
broken deps like this.
rel-eng had 8 years to think about this problem and to develop
appropriate strategies. They obviously didn't.
The testers run with updates-testing enabled and
don't see any "yum update" failures, because everything needed is
found. It would be insane to request them to check low-level package deps
manually. If inter-package dependencies are so strict and only the
package maintainer knows the order in which to push individual packages
(which are supposed to be backwards compatible!), karma automatism in bodhi
could have been turnt off. No need to rush. The full ALSA stuff could have
spent much more time in updates-testing before pushing it manually. Also,
if testers have tested alsa-utils *with* the needed new alsa-lib, why let
push alsa-utils without the needed alsa-lib?
--
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
