On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 10:38:50AM -0700, Jerry James wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > What about packages that fail to build because they depend on some > other package that is broken? I've got one in that state now. It > fails to build from source because one of its BuildRequires is broken. > There's nothing wrong with my package. Once the other guy fixes his, > mine will magically start building again. If the other guy hasn't > fixed his package by Beta, how is dropping mine going to help? It will motivate you, or someone else depending on it, to become a co-maintainer of the broken package & help with fixing it ;-P In all seriousness though, it is very bad if we're having many of cases of large sets of downstream package chains being blocked by an dependant one failing. If a security issue arises in the FTBFS package we're between a rock & a hard place, which is why I think it is worth being strict on fixing FTBFS bugs. Regards, 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
