On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:48:26AM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > so are all these bugs, for that matter: they're actual bugs encountered > > by Matt. The package failing to build is clearly a bug. Matt tried to > > build it and so encountered the bug. Where does it fail to meet your > > criteria? > > > > I agree it's a bit questionable whether we should block packages for > > FTBFS, but the argument can clearly be made; being self-hosting is > > obviously important for an F/OSS project. At some point it devolves into > > Stallmanite wankery about whether you can flash your mouse, but where > > exactly we should draw the line isn't a slam-dunk :) > > I'm sitting on the fence on this one. There are packages built on F-12 > that work perfectly well on rawhide that don't build on rawhide. What > about an instance where there's dependant packages. Do they > automatically get blocked too or do we go through another route of > FTBFS on those too? > Yes, they should get automatically blocked too. > In the case of a leaf one it might be that by it > not building currently doesn't affect anything and the maintainer is > aware of the problem but needs the time to fix the issue properly when > he gets time. In this case the maintainer then has to jump through the > review process all over again to get it unblocked and then will likely > just not be bothered. They shouldn't have to go through a re-review unless they've let the package sit in retirement for (I believe it's six months but someone else might have the policy URL handy). -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpN4KhrSUCh3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
