On 01/05/2010 12:23 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > 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. Sure, but even if it did generate a false positive, the build would still be there, just not tagged. Rel-eng could tag the package manually while fixing the test to prevent the false positive. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
