On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:16:13PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 01/05/2010 12:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > 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. > > Well, I think a reasonable alternative would be to add those policies to > the AutoQA infrastructure, and if the package fails the check, it > doesn't get tagged and the packager gets an email explaining the > failure. That will get things fixed up. ;) That sounds good as long as AutoQA is reliable, not generating false positives. I'd still also suggest that we have a rule drop all packages reported by the FTBFS tests which aren't fixed by time of Beta. 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
