On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 01:57:14PM +0000, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 12:16 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > > 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. ;) > > The only problem with that is that just about every packaging guideline > has _some_ valid exceptions (that's why they're all guidelines...) and > it's rather hard to build exceptions into an automatic testing system in > a way which doesn't get horribly crufty in a hurry. But yes, broadly I'm > in favour of this kind of thing. Mandriva does it to a limited extent (a > few rpmlint checks are run on submitted packages and certain failures > cause the package to be rejected) and it does stop people making really > bad mistakes. At time of the initial package review, the packager has to justify the exception to the reviewer. Post-package review packager can do whatever they want. The lack of ongoing analysis of packaging changes post-review is a hole in our process. If we decided to turn a certain subset of the guidelines into hard rules, then we'd want a way to record per-package exceptions in AutoQA, along with a short justification text. This tracking would ensure we know about changes/issues that arise post-review, closing that hole in our process. 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
