On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 16:30 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 04:49:59PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > "* The distribution SHOULD not contain any broken EVR paths (i.e. > > packages that RPM considers "older" than those in the previous release). > > * The distribution SHOULD not contain any broken dependencies." > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/ReleaseCriteria#Package_Sanity > > Yeah, that's not a packaging guideline though is it. That's a set of > release criteria that the QA team use. For the record, the QA team reckons that pushing updates with intentionally broken dependencies is extremely silly, and in the Glorious Future, autoqa will complain if you do it. Just say no, kids. (This correspondent thinks it's not really necessary to go after rwjones' provenpackager status / competence / sanity, though. Just MHO.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
