On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:04:23 +0200, Kevin wrote: > Jussi Lehtola wrote: > > Why not? The purpose of testing is to find out if the package breaks > > something. In the case of a new package there is no functionality of it > > to break; the only possibility of getting into trouble is if the package > > itself hasn't been made correctly (clashing file names or so on), which > > should be in any case picked up in the review. > > But you still risk pushing out a completely broken new package, which > doesn't reflect well on you. ;-) > > One of the ways this can happen is if you inadvertently built your new > package against a buildroot override which is not in stable yet. Or of > course the package itself could be broken. Just to acknowledge that this is not only theory, it has happened before actually. Most recently with qtorrent in Fedora 11 stable updates, with the needed rb_libtorrent only sitting in the koji buildroot. The opposite has happened before, too, however. ABI-incompatible library updates marked stable for one or more dists -- after not using rpmdiff, or deliberately as a result of not knowing the releng buildroot override procedure. Explicit Requires (with and without versions) also cause unresolved dependencies regularly (on one or all archs) when pushing updates to multiple target dists. Other breakage is caused by automatically disabled features at %build/%configure time, if a package is mass-built for multiple dists without accurate/safe/fatal checks of build requirements and without the packager skimming over build logs. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
