On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 3:20:25 PM, Adam Willamson wrote: > On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:13 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote: >> > 1) All updates (even security) must pass AutoQA tests. >> > Rationale: If a package breaks dependencies, does not install, or >> > fails other obvious tests, it should not be pushed. Period. Obviously, >> > this proposal would not be enacted until AutoQA is live. >> >> This is a sane approach. >> >> One problem with immediate implementation would be that all packages, >> no matter how insignificant would need to have tests that could be >> run. Some packages in categories such as firmware or cross-compilation >> tools would require specialized hardware to test fully as part of the >> build or subsequent AutoQA testing. > What Bill's talking about when he refers to 'autoqa tests' are generic > tests which are concerned with package quality, not really the software > in the package: stuff like do the dependencies work, are there any clear > errors in the file lists. They can be run on any RPM package, the > software in the package doesn't really matter. > -- > Adam Williamson That makes sense. How about things like rpmlint? Perhaps that would have caught the bind/dnssec problems where user configs were directly rewritten without backup to rpmnew files. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
