On 12/08/2010 09:50 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 01:05 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote: > I agree it's a bit questionable whether we should block packages for > FTBFS, IMO, there can't be any doubt about FTBFS's to be "must fixes" and them to release blockers for packages being affected. Rationale: - It's important packages are buildable at any time, to be able to quickly react on bugs. - Packages, which are hit by FTBFS issues often suffer from other but "mere technical issues", e.g. maintainers having gone AWOL, the package being of low quality, maintainers not being sufficiently skilled etc. - Packages, which are hit by FTBFS issue often reveil hidden packaging issues (e.g. broken deps having silently being introduced), which should be addressed as soon as possible to prevent other packages from being infected with "work-arounds" (e.g. redundant package deps or configuration hackery). - FTBFS issues occasionally reveil global issues, which so far have managed to get away unaddressed/unnoticed (e.g. compiler bugs, toolchain issues etc.) Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
