On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:48:47AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 01/05/2010 11:30 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 11:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> On the other hand, with the > >> guideline being so widely ignored, I'm not in a hurry to do work to > >> comply with it ... > > > > Isn't that a chicken/egg problem? > > It really is. I mean, we could create the "Packaging Police" to run > around and enforce the guidelines by force (either by fixing them > manually, or by threatening maintainers until they do it), but is that > really what we want? Not for all packaging policies, but for some I think that would be a good idea. Pick a set of policies we think are particularly important to enforce & can be automatically checked, and declare any non-compliant ones will be dropped in the next fedora release unless fixed. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
