On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 11:13 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 15:43:04 -0500, > James Laska <jlaska@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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 > > * Is the Source properly defined > > * License review/examination (if possible) > > * Upstream Source match tarball > > * Package scriptlet syntax checks > > 3. Package must be newer than previously released versions - can't > > ship newer package in N-1. > > 4. Any additional MUST requirements folks would like to see covered > > from the package review requirements? > > File conflicts (assuming that "conflicts" above referred to just conflicts > dependencies). Ah yes. I wasn't specific enough about, but file conflicts is what was meant. 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
