On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:18 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote: > On 09/03/10 20:43, James Laska wrote: > > Some basics I'd propose as a starting point for defining acceptance > > criteria include: > > > > 1. repoclosure/conflicts - no package update can introduce broken > > deps or conflicts. I'd recommend we apply this to both > > 'updates-testing' and 'updates' (but that's detailed below) > > 2. Package sanity > > * No rpmlint failures > > rpmlint, in common with many other "lint" tools, reports things that it > thinks *may* be errors that actually are intended. To regard "no rpmlint > failures" as a package sanity check is way over the top I think. > > Comparing the rpmlint output for an updated package with the rpmlint > output for the currently in-repo package would be more useful as that > could identify any new issues, but there should still be a means to > override rpmlint if the maintainer can explain why it's not a problem. Agreed. Comparing the output between the previous and the proposed build seems to be a fair compromise. Thanks, James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
