On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 07:07:59PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > You cannot avoid human interaction as in setting bugzilla keywords and Of course you can't avoid human interaction, but at the very least you can reduce it (reducing the associated errors as well). That's the reason why e.g. you get notifications of changes to a Bugzilla report and why you click on the URL in the mail from Bugzilla, rather than copying it in manually in your browser. > No. It's in fedora.us already in the "stable" repository (much to the > disliking of some people) and the fedora.us build system uses a modified What are these people's objections? Instability? The use of apt-rpm? Security? Anything else? I agree it's not a perfect tool, but IMHO it still beats the alternative of using nothing at all. > > Should it be sanctioned as a required tool for packagers? > No, because it behaves differently than plain rpmbuild. I did not mean that as in "a requirement for RPMs" (all of them); I rather meant it as in "a requirement for RPMs to be included in FC/FE". My point is: get mach, rpmlint and equivalents into FC (not FE). The ultimate test would be: given a fresh Fedora install, how much work does it take to build an arbitrary package from a SRPM or SPEC+archive? how much effort does it take to verify that it builds on the current distribution as well as on at least another version? Make those two tasks reasonably simple and quick; at that point people like me will have no excuses - except for "the dog ate my SRPM". -- Rudi
